GEODE-9269: Make the lock holding has the same order.

[pivotal-eshu]

• When handling TXLockService, always trying to acquire destroy read lock
  before getting the synchronized batchLocks.
• If destroy read lock is not acuried, thread will wait until the grantor
  is destoryed.

Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache Geode.

In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been taken:

For all changes:

• Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced in the commit message?

• Has your PR been rebased against the latest commit within the target branch (typically develop)?

• Is your initial contribution a single, squashed commit?

• Does gradlew build run cleanly?

• Have you written or updated unit tests to verify your changes?

• If adding new dependencies to the code, are these dependencies licensed in a way that is compatible for inclusion under ASF 2.0?

Note:

Please ensure that once the PR is submitted, check Concourse for build issues and
submit an update to your PR as soon as possible. If you need help, please send an
email to dev@geode.apache.org.

[DonalEvans]

A few typos and test cleanup suggestions. Also, the order in which we take the lock and synchronize is the same as the order in which we release the lock and exit the synchronized block. I'm wondering if it might be better to exit the synchronized block first, then release the lock.

[DonalEvans]

This is addition not necessary, as dLockService was created using RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS, so calling any method on it will return a mocked class. In fact, none of the mocking in this setup() method is necessary other than:

dLockService = mock(DLockService.class, RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS);
grantor = DLockGrantor.createGrantor(dLockService, 1);

[pivotal-eshu]

I thought the RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS should do the trick, but the test runs failed:
https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/apache-develop-pr/jobs/StressNewTestOpenJDK11/builds/1902

[DonalEvans]

Oh, weird. That must be something to do with how StressNewTest runs things in parallel.

[dschneider-pivotal]

Since you are changing the order we do the readLock and the sync, you should also change the order they are released. Right after you have acquired the read lock you should have the try/finally that has the finally release that read lock. Inside that try block you would have the sync block. Doing it this way makes more sense and allows the code to be refactored (for example you could extra the sync blocks into their own methods). So unless you have a good reason for not have the releases match the acquires, I think you should change them to match.