-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix IPVS proxier to update stale real server after restart #111635
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Add
proxier.updateWeights = false
here. The mutex is held so it's safeThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(btw, you may make a comment that the mutex is held and that it's a one-time event)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we can't add this here, as this is inside a loop. adding this outside the loop instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Outside the "for _, ep := range newEndpoints.List() {" loop you mean? Seens reasonable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
on second thought, is it completely safe to have
proxier.updateWeights = false
insidesyncProxyRules()
instead ofOnServicesSynced()
/OnEndpointSynced()
?i'm asking because in
OnServicesSynced()
we do something like:so even though
proxier.syncProxyRules()
would capture the mutex first thing, theoretically another goroutine which calledsyncProxyRules()
could executeproxier.updateWeights = false
at the exact moment betweenOnServiceSynced
let go of the lock andproxier.syncProxyRules()
acquired the lock.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Silly mistake, now it works https://go.dev/play/p/CuVZg3B2itE
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, i noticed
first
needs to be initialized to true instead of falseThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems
go
has support for "Once"; https://golangcode.com/run-code-once-with-sync/You may see if you can use it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am unsure if it's better since we already have the proxier.mu mutex.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's better to avoid
sync.Once
because if in the future we want to do more things only on startup, the underlying function will get large. Having a flag gives us flexibility about where we want to run the one-time logic during sync.