[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20846?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16532979#comment-16532979
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-20846:
-----------------------------------

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue}  0m 
45s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green}  0m 
 0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2.0 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green}  8m 
22s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  2m 
27s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green}  1m 
29s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green}  5m 
29s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded 
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green}  2m 
38s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
54s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green}  4m 
57s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  2m 
12s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green}  2m 
12s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red}  1m 
25s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server: The patch generated 3 new + 8 unchanged 
- 0 fixed = 11 total (was 8) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green}  0m 
 0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedjars {color} | {color:red}  4m  
8s{color} | {color:red} patch has 10 errors when building our shaded downstream 
artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green} 
14m 42s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 
2.6.5 2.7.4 or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red}  3m  
9s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server generated 1 new + 0 unchanged - 0 fixed = 
1 total (was 0) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
45s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 23m 49s{color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} asflicense {color} | {color:red}  0m 
17s{color} | {color:red} The patch generated 1 ASF License warnings. {color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 78m 12s{color} | 
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| FindBugs | module:hbase-server |
|  |  Nullcheck of table at line 599 of value previously dereferenced in 
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.procedure.MasterProcedureScheduler.waitRegions(Procedure,
 TableName, RegionInfo[])  At MasterProcedureScheduler.java:599 of value 
previously dereferenced in 
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.procedure.MasterProcedureScheduler.waitRegions(Procedure,
 TableName, RegionInfo[])  At MasterProcedureScheduler.java:[line 590] |
| Failed junit tests | 
hadoop.hbase.master.procedure.TestMasterProcedureScheduler |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:6f01af0 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-20846 |
| JIRA Patch URL | 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12930310/HBASE-20846.branch-2.0.patch
 |
| Optional Tests |  asflicense  javac  javadoc  unit  findbugs  shadedjars  
hadoopcheck  hbaseanti  checkstyle  compile  |
| uname | Linux e718a8a1de41 3.13.0-143-generic #192-Ubuntu SMP Tue Feb 27 
10:45:36 UTC 2018 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality | 
/home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/component/dev-support/hbase-personality.sh
 |
| git revision | branch-2.0 / 4495b10e58 |
| maven | version: Apache Maven 3.5.4 
(1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe; 2018-06-17T18:33:14Z) |
| Default Java | 1.8.0_171 |
| findbugs | v3.1.0-RC3 |
| checkstyle | 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/13504/artifact/patchprocess/diff-checkstyle-hbase-server.txt
 |
| shadedjars | 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/13504/artifact/patchprocess/patch-shadedjars.txt
 |
| findbugs | 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/13504/artifact/patchprocess/new-findbugs-hbase-server.html
 |
| unit | 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/13504/artifact/patchprocess/patch-unit-hbase-server.txt
 |
|  Test Results | 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/13504/testReport/ |
| asflicense | 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/13504/artifact/patchprocess/patch-asflicense-problems.txt
 |
| Max. process+thread count | 641 (vs. ulimit of 10000) |
| modules | C: hbase-server U: hbase-server |
| Console output | 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/13504/console |
| Powered by | Apache Yetus 0.7.0   http://yetus.apache.org |


This message was automatically generated.



> Table's shared lock is not held by sub-procedures after master restart
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-20846
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20846
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 2.1.0
>            Reporter: Allan Yang
>            Assignee: Allan Yang
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 3.0.0, 2.1.0, 2.0.2
>
>         Attachments: HBASE-20846.branch-2.0.002.patch, 
> HBASE-20846.branch-2.0.patch
>
>
> Found this one when investigating ModifyTableProcedure got stuck while there 
> was a MoveRegionProcedure going on after master restart.
> Though this issue can be solved by HBASE-20752. But I discovered something 
> else.
> Before a MoveRegionProcedure can execute, it will hold the table's shared 
> lock. so,, when a UnassignProcedure was spwaned, it will not check the 
> table's shared lock since it is sure that its parent(MoveRegionProcedure) has 
> aquired the table's lock.
> {code:java}
> // If there is parent procedure, it would have already taken xlock, so no 
> need to take
>       // shared lock here. Otherwise, take shared lock.
>       if (!procedure.hasParent()
>           && waitTableQueueSharedLock(procedure, table) == null) {
>           return true;
>       }
> {code}
> But, it is not the case when Master was restarted. The child 
> procedure(UnassignProcedure) will be executed first after restart. Though it 
> has a parent(MoveRegionProcedure), but apprently the parent didn't hold the 
> table's lock.
> So, since it began to execute without hold the table's shared lock. A 
> ModifyTableProcedure can aquire the table's exclusive lock and execute at the 
> same time. Which is not possible if the master was not restarted.
> This will cause a stuck before HBASE-20752. But since HBASE-20752 has fixed, 
> I wrote a simple UT to repo this case.
> I think we don't have to check the parent for table's shared lock. It is a 
> shared lock, right? I think we can acquire it every time we need it.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to