On 18 October 2016 at 14:00, Oliver Gondža <ogon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-10-18 14:52, Surya Gaddipati wrote:
> In theory, add should be safe and only remove requiring the lock...
>> Would you be open to accepting the following patch to jenkins core
> This will further expose the nasty implementation detail we failed to
> hide: scheduling will choke once nodes are manipulated.
> Silly question, can not make the Queue/scheduling immune to Nodes changes
> - and get rid of this abomination? The idea that different parts of
> codebase needs to be aware of this and we even rely on plugins to play nice
> to protect scheduling consistency is frighting me.
As I said, I have identified a paper which should enable an approach that
would give us a lock free Queue/LoadBalancer... but I have not had the time
to put effort into it.
Part of the issue here is also the queue listeners. Last time we tried to
unpick the queue locking behaviour we ended up causing regressions in the
I'll raise it internally with our PM to see if they'll be ok allocating
some time for me to experiment with queue de-locking...
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Jenkins Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To view this discussion on the web visit
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.