Re: [infinispan-dev] Stream operations under lock

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:42 PM William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com <mailto:mudokonman@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:53 PM Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>> wrote: On 03/21/2017 04:37 PM, William Burns wrote: > Some users have expressed the need to have some sort of forEach > operation that is performed where the Consumer is called while holding > the lock for the given key and subsequently released after the > Consumer operation completes. Seconding Dan's question - is that intended to be able to modify the entry? In my opinion, sending a function that will work on the ReadWriteEntryView directly to the node is the only reasonable request. I wouldn't like to see blocking operations in there. Hrmm the user can use the FunctionalMap interface for this then it seems? I wonder if this should just be the going in API. I will need to discuss with Galder the semantics of the evalAll/evalMany methods. Actually looking at evalAll it seems it doesn't scale as it keeps all entries in memory at once, so this is only for caches with a limited amount of entries.

> > Due to the nature of how streams work with retries and performing the > operation on the primary owner, this works out quite well with forEach > to be done in an efficient way. > > The problem is that this only really works well with non tx and > pessimistic tx. This obviously leaves out optimistic tx, which at > first I was a little worried about. But after thinking about it more, > this prelocking and optimistic tx don't really fit that well together > anyways. So I am thinking whenever this operation is performed it > would throw an exception not letting the user use this feature in > optimistic transactions. How exactly reading streams interacts with transactions? Does it wrap read entries into context? This would be a scalability issue. It doesn't wrap read entries into the context for that exact reason. It does however use existing entries in the context to override ones in memory/store.

I agree that "locking" should not be exposed with optimistic transactions. Yeah I can't find a good way to do this really and it seems to be opposite of what optimistic transactions are. With pessimistic transactions, how do you expect to handle locking order? For regular operations, user is responsible for setting up some locking order in order to not get a deadlock. With pessimistic transaction, it's the cache itself who will order the calls. Also, if you lock anything that is read, you just end up locking everything (or, getting a deadlock). If you don't it's the same as issuing the lock and reading again (to check the locked value) - but you'd do that internally anyway. Therefore, I don't feel well about pessimistic transactions neither. The lock is done per key only for each invocation. There is no ordering as only one is obtained at a time before it goes to the next. If the user then acquires a lock for another key while in the Consumer this could cause a deadlock if the inverse occurs on a different thread/node, but this is on the user. It is the same as it is today really, except we do the read lock for them before invoking their Consumer.

> > Another question is what does the API for this look like. I was > debating between 3 options myself: > > 1. AdvancedCache.forEachWithLock(BiConsumer<Cache, CacheEntry<K, V>> > consumer) > > This require the least amount of changes, however the user can't > customize certain parameters that CacheStream currently provides > (listed below - big one being filterKeys). > > 2. CacheStream.forEachWithLock(BiConsumer<Cache, CacheEntry<K, V>> > consumer) > > This method would only be allowed to be invoked on the Stream if no > other intermediate operations were invoked, otherwise an exception > would be thrown. This still gives us access to all of the CacheStream > methods that aren't on the Stream interface (ie. > sequentialDistribution, parallelDistribution, parallel, sequential, > filterKeys, filterKeySegments, distributedBatchSize, > disableRehashAware, timeout). For both options, I don't like Cache being passed around. You should modify the CacheEntry (or some kind of view) directly. I don't know for sure if that is sufficient for the user. Sometimes they may modify another Cache given the value in this one for example, which they could access from the CacheManager of that Cache. Maybe Tristan knows more about some use cases.

Radim > > 3. LockedStream<CacheEntry<K, V>> AdvancedCache.lockedStream() > > This requires the most changes, however the API would be the most > explicit. In this case the LockedStream would only have the methods on > it that are able to be invoked as noted above and forEach. > > I personally feel that #3 might be the cleanest, but obviously > requires adding more classes. Let me know what you guys think and if > you think the optimistic exclusion is acceptable. > > Thanks, > > - Will > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev -- Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>> JBoss Performance Team _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev