[infinispan-dev] New algorithm to handle remote commands
pedro at infinispan.org
Thu Sep 18 08:29:36 EDT 2014
On 09/18/2014 12:03 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:
> Thanks Pedro, this looks great.
> However, I don't think it's ok to treat CommitCommands/Pessimistic
> PrepareCommands as RemoteLockCommands just because they may send L1
> invalidation commands. It's true that those commands will block, but
> there's no need to wait for any other command before doing the L1
> invalidation. In fact, the non-tx writes on backup owners, which you
> consider to be non-blocking, can also send L1 invalidation commands (see
They are not treated as RemoteLockCommands. I just said that they are
processed in the remote executor service (need to double check what I
wrote in the wiki). Unfortunately, I haven't think about the L1 in that
> On the other hand, one of the good things that the remote executor did
> was to allow queueing lots of commands with a higher topology id, when
> one of the nodes receives the new topology much later than the others.
> We still have to consider each TopologyAffectedCommand as potentially
> blocking and put it through the remote executor.
> And InvalidateL1Commands are also TopologyAffectedCommands, so there's
> still a potential for deadlock when L1 is enabled and we have maxThreads
> write commands blocked sending L1 invalidations and those L1
> invalidation commands are stuck in the remote executor's queue on
> another node. And with (very) unlucky timing the remote executor might
> not even get to create maxThreads threads before the deadlock appears. I
> wonder if we could write a custom executor that checks what the first
> task in the queue is every second or so, and creates a bunch of new
> threads if the first task in the queue hasn't changed.
I need to think a little more about it.
So, a single put can originate:
1 RPC to the primary owner (to lock)
X RPC to invalidate L1 from the primary owner
R RPC for the primary owner to the backups owner
Y RPC to invalidate L1 from the backup owner
is this correct?
any suggestions are welcome.
> You're right about the remote executor getting full as well, we're
> lacking any feedback mechanism to tell the sender to slow down, except
> for blocking the OOB thread. I wonder if we could tell JGroups somehow
> to discard the message from inside MessageDispatcher.handle (e.g. throw
> a DiscardMessageException), so the sender has to retransmit it and we
> don't block the OOB thread. That should allow us to set a size limit on
> the BlockingTaskAwareExecutor's blockedTasks collection as well. Bela, WDYT?
Even if we have a way to tell the JGroups to resend the message, we have
no idea if the executor service is full or not. We allow a user to
inject their own implementation of it.
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Pedro Ruivo <pedro at infinispan.org
> <mailto:pedro at infinispan.org>> wrote:
> new link:
> On 09/17/2014 05:08 PM, Pedro Ruivo wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I've just wrote on the wiki a new algorithm to better handle the
> > commands. You can find it in .
> > If you have questions, suggestion or just want to discuss some
> > please do in thread. I'll update the wiki page based on this
> > Thanks.
> > Cheers,
> > Pedro
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
More information about the infinispan-dev