Re: [infinispan-dev] Atomic operations and transactions

Do these atomic operations really make sense within an (optimitic) transaction? For example, putIfAbsent(): it stores a k,v pair if the key is not present. But the key about it's usability is that the return of putIfAbsent can tell you whether the put succeeded or not. Once you go into transactions, the result is only valid once the transaction has been prepared unless the pessimistic locking as per definition in http://community.jboss.org/docs/DOC-16973 is in use, and that's already pretty confusing IMO.

I get the feeling that those atomic operations are particularly useful when transactions are not used cos they allow you to reduce to cache operations to one, hence avoiding the need to use a lock or synchronized block, or in our case, a transaction.

On Jun 30, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > Hello all, > some team members had a meeting yesterday, one of the discussed > subjects was about using atomic operations (putIfAbsent, etc..). > Mircea just summarised it in the following proposal: > > The atomic operations, as defined by the ConcurrentHashMap, don't fit > well within the scope of optimistic transaction: this is because there > is a discrepancy between the value returned by the operation and the > value and the fact that the operation is applied or not: > E.g. putIfAbsent(k, v) might return true as there's no entry for k in > the scope of the current transaction, but in fact there might be a > value committed by another transaction, hidden by the fact we're > running in repeatable read mode. > Later on, at prepare time when the same operation is applied on the > node that actually holds k, it might not succeed as another > transaction has updated k in between, but the return value of the > method was already evaluated long before this point. > In order to solve this problem, if an atomic operations happens within > the scope of a transaction, Infinispan eagerly acquires a lock on the > remote node. This locks is held for the entire duration of the > transaction, and is an expensive lock as it involves an RPC. If > keeping the lock remotely for potentially long time represents a > problem, the user can suspend the running transaction and run the > atomic operation out of transaction's scope, then resume the > transaction. > > > In addition to this, would would you think about adding a flag to > these methods which acts as suspending the transaction just before and > resuming it right after? I don't know what is the cost of suspending & > resuming a transaction, but such a flag could optionally be optimized > in future by just ignoring the current transaction instead of really > suspending it, or apply other clever tricks we might come across. > > I also think that we should discuss if such a behaviour should not be > the default - anybody using an atomic operation is going to make some > assumptions which are clearly incompatible with the transaction, so > I'm wondering what is the path here to "least surprise" for default > invocation. > > Regards, > Sanne > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev