[jbossts-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (JBTM-2396) Investigate whether OCC implementation is unexpectedly checking locks during @WriteLock methods rather than delaying to commit time
Mark Little (JIRA)
issues at jboss.org
Sun May 10 08:43:19 EDT 2015
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-2396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13066710#comment-13066710 ]
Mark Little commented on JBTM-2396:
-----------------------------------
You're right - for some reason the only use of OptimisticLock is within the actual tests. I'll take a look at this further when I get a chance. Will add your test too.
> Investigate whether OCC implementation is unexpectedly checking locks during @WriteLock methods rather than delaying to commit time
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JBTM-2396
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-2396
> Project: JBoss Transaction Manager
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: STM
> Reporter: Tom Jenkinson
> Assignee: Mark Little
> Attachments: OptimisticLockUnitTest.java
>
>
> While checking out the STM work I tried to observe the difference between the OCC and PCC variants of the framework. During my testing I was not able to distinguish a difference between the two implementations.
> Consider the following test:
> {code}
> // gonna confess here, I am using two containers as I thought it might separate better but I don't actually think this is required to use the two containers to get the separation as the two transactions should I create should be doing that?
> Container<Atomic> theContainer1 = new Container<Atomic>();
> Container<Atomic> theContainer2 = new Container<Atomic>();
> // Setting up the two references to the STM object
> final Atomic obj1 = theContainer1.create(new ExampleSTM());
> final Atomic obj2 = theContainer2.clone(new ExampleSTM(), obj1);
> // Creating a transaction and calling the @WriteLock method set() on it but don't commit the tx
> AtomicAction a = new AtomicAction();
> a.begin();
> obj1.set(1234); // Don't commit this yet - I want to check that a conflicting set() doesn't get the lockexception until commit()
> // Setting up a second independent transaction and calling the @WriteLock method set() on it again
> AtomicAction.suspend();
> AtomicAction b = new AtomicAction();
> b.begin();
> // Now, in my understanding calling this method should only throw a LockException for pessimistic locking, but with the current implementation the Lock throws a conflict now
> obj2.set(12345); // This throws an exception even for @Optimisitic
> // the rest of the test commits the two txs, but IMO as I am using @Optimistic I should not have got the LockException on the second set() so the test failed
> {code}
> Whether the Atomic interface is annotated with either @Optimisitic (or ommitted/default @Pessimisitc) the second @WriteLock set(int) call results in a lockexception being thrown. This is contrary to my expectations for OCC where I would expect to observe the set() being allowed but validation to be performed during commit and the commit to fail.
> From my reading of STM/src/main/java/org/jboss/stm/internal/reflect/InvocationHandler.java I can see that this class (nor any of the other main classes) uses the OptimisticLock (which appears to suppress lock conflicts). I can see it uses OptimisticLockRecord which may do the validation correctly but my test fails because the second set(int) is allowed.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
More information about the jbossts-issues
mailing list