[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12932595#action_12932595
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on ZOOKEEPER-900:
-------------------------------------

+1 overall.  Here are the results of testing the latest attachment 
  http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12459714/ZOOKEEPER-900.patch
  against trunk revision 1034003.

    +1 @author.  The patch does not contain any @author tags.

    +1 tests included.  The patch appears to include 3 new or modified tests.

    +1 javadoc.  The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.

    +1 javac.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac 
compiler warnings.

    +1 findbugs.  The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs warnings.

    +1 release audit.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of 
release audit warnings.

    +1 core tests.  The patch passed core unit tests.

    +1 contrib tests.  The patch passed contrib unit tests.

Test results: 
https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/32//testReport/
Findbugs warnings: 
https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/32//artifact/trunk/build/test/findbugs/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Console output: 
https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/32//console

This message is automatically generated.

> FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-900
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900
>             Project: Zookeeper
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Vishal K
>            Assignee: Vishal K
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 3.4.0
>
>         Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, 
> ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2
>
>
> From earlier email exchanges:
> 1. Blocking connects and accepts:
> a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which 
> does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that 
> connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() 
> does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne 
> starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection 
> is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it 
> interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an 
> upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of 
> course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector 
> to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we 
> at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the 
> real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do 
> blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the 
> respective !
 peer.
> b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also 
> in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for 
> each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get 
> peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the 
> peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the 
> Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the 
> Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because 
> it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent 
> cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very 
> carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is 
> going to be difficult to maintain/modify.
> Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to