[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-26105?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17391032#comment-17391032
]
Hudson commented on HBASE-26105:
--------------------------------
Results for branch branch-2
[build #311 on
builds.a.o|https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/311/]:
(x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}*
----
details (if available):
(/) {color:green}+1 general checks{color}
-- For more information [see general
report|https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/311/General_20Nightly_20Build_20Report/]
(/) {color:green}+1 jdk8 hadoop2 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop2)
report|https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/311/JDK8_20Nightly_20Build_20Report_20_28Hadoop2_29/]
(/) {color:green}+1 jdk8 hadoop3 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop3)
report|https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/311/JDK8_20Nightly_20Build_20Report_20_28Hadoop3_29/]
(/) {color:green}+1 jdk11 hadoop3 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk11
report|https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/311/JDK11_20Nightly_20Build_20Report_20_28Hadoop3_29/]
(/) {color:green}+1 source release artifact{color}
-- See build output for details.
(x) {color:red}-1 client integration test{color}
--Failed when running client tests on top of Hadoop 2. [see log for
details|https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/311//artifact/output-integration/hadoop-2.log].
(note that this means we didn't run on Hadoop 3)
> Rectify the expired TODO comment in CombinedBC
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-26105
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-26105
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: BlockCache
> Reporter: Yutong Xiao
> Assignee: Yutong Xiao
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 2.5.0, 3.0.0-alpha-2, 2.4.6, 2.3.7
>
>
> In the method getBlock in CombinedBC, there is a TODO comment as follows:
> {code:java}
> @Override
> public Cacheable getBlock(BlockCacheKey cacheKey, boolean caching,
> boolean repeat, boolean updateCacheMetrics) {
> // TODO: is there a hole here, or just awkwardness since in the lruCache
> getBlock
> // we end up calling l2Cache.getBlock.
> // We are not in a position to exactly look at LRU cache or BC as
> BlockType may not be getting
> // passed always.
> boolean existInL1 = l1Cache.containsBlock(cacheKey);
> if (!existInL1 && updateCacheMetrics && !repeat) {
> // If the block does not exist in L1, the containsBlock should be
> counted as one miss.
> l1Cache.getStats().miss(caching, cacheKey.isPrimary(),
> cacheKey.getBlockType());
> }
> return existInL1 ?
> l1Cache.getBlock(cacheKey, caching, repeat, updateCacheMetrics):
> l2Cache.getBlock(cacheKey, caching, repeat, updateCacheMetrics);
> }
> {code}
> The TODO comment is expired. While in CombinedBC, L2 is not the victim
> handler of L1.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
