[1.11] server/ContainerStatus: don't lock #3881
Conversation
r.ContainerStatus(c) is using opLock which can sometimes be held for minutes in e.g. runtime.ContainerStop. The opLock is there so that operations changing the container state won't clash. There is no reason to wait for the lock here. The side effect is, ContainerStatus will return immediately, not e.g. after container has finished starting or stopping, and show the old, rather than new, state. Signed-off-by: Kir Kolyshkin <kolyshkin@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <pehunt@redhat.com>
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
dco-signoff: yes
haircommander
changed the title
|
/retest |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: haircommander, mrunalp The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
PTAL @umohnani8 @mrunalp |
|
/lgtm |
|
/retest |
|
@haircommander: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
r.ContainerStatus(c) is using opLock which can sometimes be held for minutes
in e.g. runtime.ContainerStop. The opLock is there so that
operations changing the container state won't clash. There
is no reason to wait for the lock here.
The side effect is, ContainerStatus will return immediately,
not e.g. after container has finished starting or stopping,
and show the old, rather than new, state.
adapted from #3457
Signed-off-by: Kir Kolyshkin kolyshkin@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt pehunt@redhat.com
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?