Re: [infinispan-dev] AtomicHashMap concurrent modifications in pessimistic mode
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 16 May 2013, at 15:04, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> I'm working on an intermittent failure in NodeMoveAPIPessimisticTest and
I think I've come across what I think is underspecified behaviour in
AtomicHashMap.
>
> Say we have two transactions, tx1 and tx2, and they both work with the
same atomic map in a pessimistic cache:
>
> 1. tx1: am1 = AtomicMapLookup.get(cache, key)
> 2. tx2: am2 = AtomicMapLookup.get(cache, key)
> 3. tx1: am1.put(subkey1, value1) // locks the map
> 4. tx2: am2.get(subkey1) // returns null
> 5. tx1: commit // the map is now {subkey1=value1}
> 6. tx2: am2.put(subkey2, value2) // locks the map
> 7. tx2: commit // the map is now {subkey2=value2}
>
> It's not clear to me from the AtomicMap/AtomicHashMap javadoc if this is
ok or if it's a bug...
as a user I find that a bit confusing so I think tx2 should merge stuff in
the AtomiMap.
Id be curious to hear Manik(author) and Sanne's (user) opinion on this.
Merging should work with pessimistic locking, but I don't think we could do
it with optimistic locking and write skew check enabled: we only do the
write skew check for the whole map. Would it be worth making this change if
it meant making the behaviour of AtomicHashMap more complex?
On the other hand, I believe FineGrainedAtomicHashMap doesn't do separate
write skew checks for each key in the map either, so users probably have to
deal with this difference between pessimistic and optimistic locking
already.
>
> Note that today the map is overwritten by tx2 even without step 4 ("tx2:
am2.get(subkey1)"). I'm pretty sure that's a bug and I fixed it locally by
using the FORCE_WRITE_LOCK in AtomicHashMapProxy.getDeltaMapForWrite.
>
> However, when the Tree API moves a node it first checks for the
existence of the destination node, which means NodeMoveAPIPessimisticTest
is still failing. I'm not sure if I should fix that by forcing a write lock
for all AtomicHashMap reads, for all TreeCache reads, or only in
TreeCache.move().
>
I tried using the FORCE_WRITE_LOCKS flag for all TreeCache reads. This
seems to work fine, and move() doesn't throw any exceptions in pessimistic
mode any more. In optimistic mode, it doesn't change anything, and
concurrent moves still fail with WriteSkewException. The only downside is
the performance, having extra locks will certainly slow things down.
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 3.3 KB)