[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15154?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17789452#comment-17789452
]
Maksym Stepanenko edited comment on KAFKA-15154 at 11/27/23 8:46 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe instead of just adding a synchronization block it would be much
better to introduce something like a read-write lock (or StampedLock ).
Like this: [https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/14837/commits]
was (Author: JIRAUSER303252):
I believe instead of just adding a synchronization block it would be much
better to introduce something like a read-write lock (or StanpedLock ).
Like this: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/14837/commits
> Potential bug: We don't acquire lock when reading checkQuotas
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-15154
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15154
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: metrics
> Reporter: Divij Vaidya
> Assignee: Lan Ding
> Priority: Major
> Labels: newbie
>
> At sensor.java line:254, we call `this.metrics.values()`. metrics is not a
> thread safe map and that is why we acquire a lock whenever we want to
> add/remove entries from it. For example, see add(), hasMetrics() method.
> However, we don't acquire a lock when calling Sensor#checkQuotas(timeMs).
> This could lead to a situation where this metrics map may be left in an
> inconsistent state (since it is not thread safe for concurrent read/write
> access).
> The objective of this task is to validate what I said above is correct and if
> yes, then fix the situation by enclosing this read in a lock. As a stretch
> task, we should consider if we can replace the metrics data structure which
> allows concurrent reads but exclusive writes.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
