IGNITE-14625 #9037
Merged
IGNITE-14625 #9037
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
| SimpleTask t = new SimpleTask("t"); | ||
| IgniteInternalFuture<Void> execAsyncFut = execAsync(n, t, false); | ||
|
|
||
| t.onExecFut.get(getTestTimeout()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't getTestTimeout() too big for this case? I suggest to replace it with another, small timeout.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this timeout will show that something is wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I mean, if something goes wrong, test will fail faster.
...c/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/localtask/ObservingCheckpointListener.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...c/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/localtask/ObservingCheckpointListener.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/localtask/DurableBackgroundTasksProcessorSelfTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Comment on lines
118
to
150
| @Override public IgniteInternalFuture<DurableBackgroundTaskResult> executeAsync(GridKernalContext ctx) { | ||
| log = ctx.log(this.getClass()); | ||
|
|
||
| assert worker == null; | ||
|
|
||
| GridFutureAdapter<DurableBackgroundTaskResult> fut = new GridFutureAdapter<>(); | ||
|
|
||
| worker = new GridWorker( | ||
| ctx.igniteInstanceName(), | ||
| "async-durable-background-task-executor-" + name(), | ||
| log | ||
| ) { | ||
| /** {@inheritDoc} */ | ||
| @Override protected void body() throws InterruptedException, IgniteInterruptedCheckedException { | ||
| try { | ||
| execute(ctx); | ||
|
|
||
| worker = null; | ||
|
|
||
| fut.onDone(DurableBackgroundTaskResult.complete(null)); | ||
| } | ||
| catch (Throwable t) { | ||
| worker = null; | ||
|
|
||
| fut.onDone(DurableBackgroundTaskResult.restart(t)); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| new IgniteThread(worker).start(); | ||
|
|
||
| return fut; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems that this method could be common for any tasks, shouldn't we move it to DurableBackgroundTasksProcessor?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this can be done as needed.
...g/apache/ignite/internal/cache/query/index/sorted/DurableBackgroundCleanupIndexTreeTask.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
ibessonov
reviewed
Apr 29, 2021
...g/apache/ignite/internal/cache/query/index/sorted/DurableBackgroundCleanupIndexTreeTask.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...g/apache/ignite/internal/cache/query/index/sorted/DurableBackgroundCleanupIndexTreeTask.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| log.info("Executing durable background task: " + task.shortName()); | ||
| /** {@inheritDoc} */ | ||
| @Override public void onMarkCheckpointBegin(Context ctx) { | ||
| for (Iterator<Entry<String, DurableBackgroundTaskState>> it = tasks.entrySet().iterator(); it.hasNext(); ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's not scary if part of the task is completed a little later, since then they will definitely be deleted at the next checkpoint.
...in/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/localtask/DurableBackgroundTasksProcessor.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...in/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/localtask/DurableBackgroundTasksProcessor.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...in/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/localtask/DurableBackgroundTasksProcessor.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...in/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/localtask/DurableBackgroundTasksProcessor.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...in/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/localtask/DurableBackgroundTasksProcessor.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...in/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/localtask/DurableBackgroundTasksProcessor.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/localtask/DurableBackgroundTasksProcessorSelfTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
ibessonov
approved these changes
Apr 30, 2021
xintrian
pushed a commit
to xintrian/ignite
that referenced
this pull request
May 27, 2022
… issue when checkpointer could preemptively delete completed task, potentially causing leaks. (apache#9037)
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.
Thank you for submitting the pull request to the Apache Ignite.
In order to streamline the review of the contribution
we ask you to ensure the following steps have been taken:
The Contribution Checklist
The description explains WHAT and WHY was made instead of HOW.
The following pattern must be used:
IGNITE-XXXX Change summarywhereXXXX- number of JIRA issue.(see the Maintainers list)
the
green visaattached to the JIRA ticket (see TC.Bot: Check PR)Notes
If you need any help, please email dev@ignite.apache.org or ask anу advice on http://asf.slack.com #ignite channel.