Mahadev konar commented on ZOOKEEPER-262:
sorry for the late review chris.... i dont remember the reason why
zookeeper_close() is the way it is right now. you patch certainly simplifies it
... and I dont see any reason for zookeeper_close() to be re entring itself
(close calling itself via adaptor_finish).... elt me think abt this more to see
if I can come up with a reason for zookeeper_close() being the way it is now...
> unnecesssarily complex reentrant zookeeper_close() logic
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-262
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-262
> Project: Zookeeper
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: c client
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 3.0.1, 3.1.0, 3.2.0, 4.0.0
> Reporter: Chris Darroch
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.1.0, 3.2.0, 4.0.0
> Attachments: zookeeper-close.patch
> While working on a wrapper for the C API I puzzled over the problem of how to
> determine when the multi-threaded adaptor's IO and completion threads had
> exited. Looking at the code in api_epilog() and adaptor_finish() it seemed
> clear that any thread could be the "last one out the door", and whichever was
> last would "turn out the lights" by calling zookeeper_close().
> However, on further examination I found that in fact, the close_requested
> flag guards entry to zookeeper_close() in api_epilog(), and close_requested
> can only be set non-zero within zookeeper_close(). Thus, only the user's
> main thread can invoke zookeeper_close() and kick off the shutdown process.
> When that happens, zookeeper_close() then invokes adaptor_finish() and
> returns ZOK immediately afterward.
> Since adaptor_finish() is only called in this one context, it means all the
> code in that function to check pthread_self() and call pthread_detach() if
> the current thread is the IO or completion thread is redundant. The
> adaptor_finish() function always signals and then waits to join with the IO
> and completion threads because it can only be called by the user's main
> After joining with the two internal threads, adaptor_finish() calls
> api_epilog(), which might seem like a trivial final action. However, this is
> actually where all the work gets done, because in this one case, api_epilog()
> sees a non-zero close_requested flag value and invokes zookeeper_close().
> Note that zookeeper_close() is already on the stack; this is a re-entrant
> This time around, zookeeper_close() skips the call to adaptor_finish() --
> assuming the reference count has been properly decremented to zero! -- and
> does the actual final cleanup steps, including deallocating the zh structure.
> Fortunately, none of the callers on the stack (api_epilog(),
> adaptor_finish(), and the first zookeeper_close()) touches zh after this.
> This all works OK, and in particular, the fact that I can be certain that the
> IO and completion threads have exited after zookeeper_close() returns is
> great. So too is the fact that those threads can't invoke zookeeper_close()
> without my knowing about it.
> However, the actual mechanics of the shutdown seem unnecessarily complex.
> I'd be worried a bit about a new maintainer looking at adaptor_finish() and
> reasonably concluding that it can be called by any thread, including the IO
> and completion ones. Or thinking that the zh handle can still be used after
> that innocuous-looking call to adaptor_finish() in zookeeper_close() -- the
> one that actually causes all the work to be done and the handle to be
> I'll attach a patch which I think simplifies the code a bit and makes the
> shutdown mechanics a little more clear, and might prevent unintentional
> errors in the future.
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.