This is a serious issue as it causes my production system to freeze up and it has to be restarted. It's consistently reproducible (usually takes a few days).

Can someone please take a quick look at the code? Does the call to SingleThreadedObjectStore.addHandle in NamedEntryPoint.insert need to be preceded by acquiring the lock?

Thanks again for your help.

Norman

From: Norman C <rent_my_time@yahoo.com>
To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org
Sent: Wed, August 4, 2010 11:23:55 PM
Subject: Re: Possible concurrency issue in Drools

I've run into this issue a few more times. Should I log a JIRA ticket for this? Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Norman

From: Norman C <rent_my_time@yahoo.com>
To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org
Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 9:56:26 PM
Subject: Re: Possible concurrency issue in Drools

All,

Just wanted to mention, I'm using version 5.0.1 of Drools.

Thanks,

Norman

From: Norman C <rent_my_time@yahoo.com>
To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org
Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 9:50:19 PM
Subject: Possible concurrency issue in Drools

Hi All,

I recently ran into an issue which I believe might point to a concurrency issue. My server stopped processing new requests, so I did a thread dump. In examining the dump, I found that all of the processing threads, save two, were blocking while trying to acquire the lock in NamedEntryPoint.insert. Both of the other two threads appeared to be infinitely looping in the NamedEntryPoint.insert method. Here are snippets of the stack traces:

ActiveMQ Session Task" prio=10 tid=0x00002aab0003b000 nid=0x7b98 runnable [0x000000004c086000..0x000000004c087c90] java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at org.drools.util.ObjectHashMap.remove(ObjectHashMap.java:121) at org.drools.common.SingleThreadedObjectStore.removeHandle(SingleThreadedObjectStore.java:150) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.retract(NamedEntryPoint.java:296) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.retract(NamedEntryPoint.java:245) at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory$WorkingMemoryReteExpireAction.execute(ReteooWorkingMemory.java:350) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.executeQueuedActions(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:1488) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:158) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:122) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:80) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:28) at

ActiveMQ Session Task" prio=10 tid=0x000000005a35cc00 nid=0xdf6 runnable [0x000000004a268000..0x000000004a269a90] java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at org.drools.util.AbstractHashTable.resize(AbstractHashTable.java:115) at org.drools.util.ObjectHashMap.put(ObjectHashMap.java:78) at org.drools.common.SingleThreadedObjectStore.addHandle(SingleThreadedObjectStore.java:136) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:113) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:80) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:28) at

So it seems like one while the first thread is holding the lock and is attempting to remove an object handle from the object store in NamedEntryPoint, the other thread is trying to resize that same object store in response to an addHandle call that puts it over the threshold. I haven't worked out exactly how these concurrent accesses to the same object store by two different threads causes an infinite loop in both threads, but it seems like the call to SingleThreadedObjectStore.addHandle should be preceded by acquiring the lock.

Is this correct? I can imagine that resizing a large hash map could potentially take a long time and thus synchronizing this call could impact performance, but somehow, the action of resizing the table must be protected in some way from adversely impacting other operations on the table.

Any help would be appreciated.

thanks,

Norman