reduce unnecessary tikvServerBusy backoff when able to try next replica #1184
Conversation
Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
…-1166 Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
internal/locate/region_request.go
Outdated
| // the state is changed in accessFollower.next when leader is unavailable. | ||
| func (s *replicaSelector) canFallback2Follower() bool { | ||
| // canSkipServerIsBusyBackoff returns true if the request can be sent to next replica and can skip ServerIsBusy backoff. | ||
| func (s *replicaSelector) canSkipServerIsBusyBackoff() bool { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we can reuse this function handling region unavailable and changing it's name in the future. Not this PR's work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, but I'm thinking perhaps the better structure is to determine whether to backoff just before the next attempt, instead of just after encountering error, so that what @zyguan tried to do in #990 becomes a unified way.
Btw I just noticed that it seems that this PR and #990 looks trying to solve the same problem 🤔 cc @zyguan
|
/hold |
Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
Nice catch. #990 introduces pending backoff for fast retry, which is great idea. After discussing with @zyguan, I introduce the pending backoff idea into this PR and unified the fast retry logic. And later, we can add more backoff to pending to do fast retry. |
Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
…into issue-1166
Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
|
/unhold |
Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
|
|
||
| // canFastRetry returns true if the request can be sent to next replica. | ||
| func (s *replicaSelector) canFastRetry() bool { | ||
| accessLeader, ok := s.state.(*accessKnownLeader) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we just do fast retry when tikv_client_read_timeout is configured? It looks a little bit dangerous to use
if not fast retry
return false
return true
as most of the request would be fast retried .
Besides, maybe we could consult slow information to decide whether fast retry should work. /cc @zyguan @MyonKeminta
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see the original logic of canFallback2Follower is trying to do fast backoff when retry next replica, so fast backoff is not only work for tikv_client_read_timeout is configured.
cc @you06
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see the original logic of canFallback2Follower is trying to do fast backoff when retry next replica, so fast backoff is not only work for
tikv_client_read_timeoutis configured. cc @you06
@crazycs520 It the current logic the same? If so we could continue first.
…-1166 Signed-off-by: crazycs520 <crazycs520@gmail.com>
close #1166
PR 923 introduce the skip
tikvServerBusybackoff logic, but it it only work for stale-read, and ifserverIsBusy.EstimatedWaitMs > 0is true, it can't skip.This PR expanded the scope of skips
tikvServerBusybackoff logic, make non-leader read requests can skiptikvServerBusybackoff, and ifserverIsBusy.EstimatedWaitMs > 0is true, non-leader read requests can skip too.