HBASE-23744 - FastPathBalancedQueueRpcExecutor should enforce queue l… #1094
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
xcangCRM
approved these changes
Jan 28, 2020
|
I have the same question as @xcangCRM . |
|
Any updates here? Should we merge the PR? Thanks. |
|
Looks like the discussion was going on Jira. The conclusion seems pending? |
|
Questions pending on Jira appear to await response from the author. |
|
@ndimiduk Questions pending on JIRA from the author are waiting for response from reviewers. :-) TestSimpleRpcScehduler.testSoftAndHardQueueLimits asserts that a call queue length of 0 means that the executor should refuse writes. There is one code path in FastPathBalancedQueueRpcExecutor that doesn't (the "fast" one); it just so happens to pass the test because that code path never gets used in the test. There are two potential solutions. In this patch, I've assumed the test is right, and fixed the FastPathBalancedQueueRpcExecutor to conform to it. Multiple reviewers wondered if this undocumented behavior should really exist as-is. If the test is wrong, the correct fix would be to change the test to not assert it. On a tangent, I mentioned that a write kill-switch is a useful feature (however achieved), and it was suggested that I file it as a JIRA, which I meant to do but never got around to doing. But this patch is still waiting on a judgment from the reviewers whether the test or the code is wrong. I'm happy to fix either one. |
ndimiduk
approved these changes
Jun 29, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TestSimpleRpcScehduler.testSoftAndHardQueueLimits asserts that a call queue length of 0 means that the executor should refuse writes. There is one code path in FastPathBalancedQueueRpcExecutor that doesn't (the "fast" one); it just so happens to pass the test because that code path never gets used in the test.
There are two potential solutions. In this patch, I've assumed the test is right, and fixed the FastPathBalancedQueueRpcExecutor to conform to it. Multiple reviewers wondered if this undocumented behavior should really exist as-is. If the test is wrong, the correct fix would be to change the test to not assert it.
This test seems to have been introduced via HBASE-15306. Reading over that ticket, behavior around currentQueueLimit seems to be a convenient side-effect for test validation, not an intentional feature. But that's just my read.
On a tangent, I mentioned that a write kill-switch is a useful feature (however achieved), and it was suggested that I file it as a JIRA, which I meant to do but never got around to doing.
But this patch is still waiting on a judgment from the reviewers whether the test or the code is wrong. I'm happy to fix either one.
I think the implementations should be consistent wherever possible, so I'm good with your approach.
I have one comment for cleanup, otherwise, +1
| @@ -559,6 +561,25 @@ public void testCoDelScheduling() throws Exception { | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| @Test | |||
| public void testFastPathBalancedQueueRpcExecutorWithQueueLength0() throws Exception { | |||
| String name = "testFastPathBalancedQueueRpcExecutorWithQueueLength0"; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use the TestName junit rule instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ndimiduk - thanks for the suggestion. I've replaced the constant with a TestName rule.
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
Test failures are not relevant. |
pull bot
referenced
this pull request
in Mu-L/hbase
Jul 13, 2020
…ength of 0 Closes #1094 Signed-off-by: Xu Cang <xucang@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Viraj Jasani <vjasani@apache.org>
virajjasani
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2020
…ength of 0 Closes #1094 Co-authored-by: Viraj Jasani <vjasani@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Xu Cang <xucang@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Viraj Jasani <vjasani@apache.org>
mapr-devops
pushed a commit
to mapr/hbase
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2020
…ength of 0 Closes apache#1094 Signed-off-by: Xu Cang <xucang@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Viraj Jasani <vjasani@apache.org>
clarax
pushed a commit
to clarax/hbase
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 15, 2020
…ength of 0 Closes apache#1094 Signed-off-by: Xu Cang <xucang@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Viraj Jasani <vjasani@apache.org>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
…ength of 0