5:44 a.m.
On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
On 7 Jun 2011, at 13:13, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Hello all,
> in this scenario we have the Infinispan Lucene Directory using
> batching (DummyTransaction), eviction and passivation to keep the
> amount of memory being used for the index under control; I'm using
> LIRS but experienced the same issue with all other strategies.
>
> As you can see from the following stacktrace, the batching ends by
> sending a commit request, so the status of the transaction is 8
> (STATUS_COMMITTING) in this context.
> The new data is stored in the DataContainer, then the
> BoundedConcurrentHashMap notifies the EvictionManagerImpl as it has to
> evict some values, and this one attempts to acquire a lock on the
> to-be-evicted keys (which are obviously not the same I'm trying to
> store).
> Acquiring this lock is an invalid operation as the transaction is in
> commit state, and so this operation fails with an exception.
>
> Thread [Hibernate Search: Directory writer-1] (Suspended (breakpoint
> at line 92 in LockManagerImpl))
> LockManagerImpl.lockAndRecord(Object, InvocationContext) line: 92
> EvictionManagerImpl.acquireLock(InvocationContext, Object) line: 210
> EvictionManagerImpl.onEntryEviction(Object, InternalCacheEntry) line: 170
> EvictionManagerImpl.onEntryEviction(Map<Object,InternalCacheEntry>) line:
162
>
DefaultDataContainer$DefaultEvictionListener.onEntryEviction(Map<Object,InternalCacheEntry>)
> line: 201
>
BoundedConcurrentHashMap$Segment<K,V>.notifyEvictionListener(Set<HashEntry<K,V>>)
> line: 1176
> BoundedConcurrentHashMap$Segment<K,V>.put(K, int, V, boolean) line: 1011
> BoundedConcurrentHashMap<K,V>.put(K, V) line: 1556
> DefaultDataContainer.put(Object, Object, long, long) line: 148
> ReadCommittedEntry.commit(DataContainer) line: 177
> LockingInterceptor.commitEntry(CacheEntry, boolean) line: 389
> LockingInterceptor.cleanupLocks(InvocationContext, boolean) line: 367
> LockingInterceptor.visitCommitCommand(TxInvocationContext,
> CommitCommand) line: 98
> CommitCommand.acceptVisitor(InvocationContext, Visitor) line: 60
> CacheStoreInterceptor(CommandInterceptor).invokeNextInterceptor(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 119
> CacheStoreInterceptor.visitCommitCommand(TxInvocationContext,
> CommitCommand) line: 148
> CommitCommand.acceptVisitor(InvocationContext, Visitor) line: 60
> CacheLoaderInterceptor(CommandInterceptor).invokeNextInterceptor(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 119
> CacheLoaderInterceptor(CommandInterceptor).handleDefault(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 133
> CacheLoaderInterceptor(AbstractVisitor).visitCommitCommand(TxInvocationContext,
> CommitCommand) line: 116
> CommitCommand.acceptVisitor(InvocationContext, Visitor) line: 60
>
NotificationInterceptor(CommandInterceptor).invokeNextInterceptor(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 119
> NotificationInterceptor.visitCommitCommand(TxInvocationContext,
> CommitCommand) line: 56
> CommitCommand.acceptVisitor(InvocationContext, Visitor) line: 60
> TxInterceptor(CommandInterceptor).invokeNextInterceptor(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 119
> TxInterceptor.visitCommitCommand(TxInvocationContext, CommitCommand) line: 142
> CommitCommand.acceptVisitor(InvocationContext, Visitor) line: 60
> CacheMgmtInterceptor(CommandInterceptor).invokeNextInterceptor(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 119
> CacheMgmtInterceptor(CommandInterceptor).handleDefault(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 133
> CacheMgmtInterceptor(AbstractVisitor).visitCommitCommand(TxInvocationContext,
> CommitCommand) line: 116
> CommitCommand.acceptVisitor(InvocationContext, Visitor) line: 60
>
InvocationContextInterceptor(CommandInterceptor).invokeNextInterceptor(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 119
> InvocationContextInterceptor.handleAll(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 96
> InvocationContextInterceptor.handleDefault(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 63
>
InvocationContextInterceptor(AbstractVisitor).visitCommitCommand(TxInvocationContext,
> CommitCommand) line: 116
> CommitCommand.acceptVisitor(InvocationContext, Visitor) line: 60
> BatchingInterceptor(CommandInterceptor).invokeNextInterceptor(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 119
> BatchingInterceptor.handleDefault(InvocationContext,
> VisitableCommand) line: 77
> BatchingInterceptor(AbstractVisitor).visitCommitCommand(TxInvocationContext,
> CommitCommand) line: 116
> CommitCommand.acceptVisitor(InvocationContext, Visitor) line: 60
> InterceptorChain.invoke(InvocationContext, VisitableCommand) line: 274
> TransactionCoordinator.commit(LocalTransaction, boolean) line: 136
> TransactionXaAdapter.commit(Xid, boolean) line: 124
> DummyTransaction.runCommitTx() line: 312
> DummyTransaction.commit() line: 99
> BatchModeTransactionManager(DummyBaseTransactionManager).commit() line: 97
> BatchContainer.resolveTransaction(BatchContainer$BatchDetails,
> boolean) line: 131
> BatchContainer.endBatch(boolean, boolean) line: 108
> BatchContainer.endBatch(boolean) line: 93
> CacheDelegate<K,V>.endBatch(boolean) line: 436
> InfinispanIndexOutput.close() line: 208
> IOUtils.closeSafely(Closeable...) line: 80
> FieldsWriter.close() line: 111
> StoredFieldsWriter.flush(SegmentWriteState) line: 52
> DocFieldProcessor.flush(Collection<DocConsumerPerThread>,
> SegmentWriteState) line: 58
>
> I would like to remove the lock operation from the eviction listener,
> but I'm not understanding why this locking is needed there and would
> appreciate some explanations or help with this.
Looking at the code, my first thought was that it is needed for sync-ing cache store
/passivator access on that key.
But afaik the cache store takes care of key locking at its own level[1], so I think that
should be remove entirely.
[1]
https://github.com/mmarkus/infinispan/blob/master/core/src/main/java/org/...
> Shouldn't an evict operation be a "best effort" operation in all
> cases,
+1. Even if my statement above doesn't stand and there's a reason to keep the
lock for consistency, it should be a best effort: try to lock with 0 timeout, if fails
just ignore it and move on.
Hmmm, if eviction was on its own, I can see the point of best effort.
But, the point of passivation is that you evict from memory and you store in the cache
store. What harm does it cause that eviction could not work for a passivated cache? You
could potentially end up with entries both in cache and store for at least a brief period
of time, until the eviction thread tries to evict it again. Now, what happens in a
passivated cache if the entry, which is supposed to have been passivated, is still in
memory due to eviction not acquiring the lock, and suddenly it gets modified in memory.
Will this changes propagate to the passivated entry?
I think this needs some thought...
Btw, 2LC uses eviction but no passivation.
> or is the idea here that we want the evictable data to be
> consistently evicted on multiple nodes, or maybe even rollback an
> evict operation?
We don't advertise cluster-wise eviction consistency, so I doubt that is the case.
Indeed, eviction is a local only operation.
>
> Cheers,
> Sanne
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)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
--
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Engineer
Infinispan, JBoss Cache