HDDS-13846. Handle sequenceid synch during close container in SCM.#9228
HDDS-13846. Handle sequenceid synch during close container in SCM.#9228ashishkumar50 merged 7 commits intoapache:masterfrom
Conversation
| // TODO: Remove the protobuf conversion after fixing ContainerStateMap. | ||
| final ContainerID id = ContainerID.getFromProtobuf(containerID); | ||
|
|
||
| try (AutoCloseableLock ignored = writeLock(id)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A read lock is acquired in the previous method. Can you check if there is possibility of a deadlock or some other problem with acquiring the write lock here while the read lock is held? AFAIK java doesn't allow a normal reentrant read write lock to be upgraded from read to write. Not sure if the striped lock being used here has some handling for this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not used this method anymore now.
| final ContainerInfo containerInfo = containers.getContainerInfo(id); | ||
| Long currentSequenceId = containerInfo.getSequenceId(); | ||
| // Delegate to @Replicate method with current sequenceId | ||
| updateContainerStateWithSequenceId(containerID, event, currentSequenceId); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should call the interface method updateContainerStateWithSequenceId instead of the implementation being called here, right? Only then will the proxy be invoked.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks Siddhant for pointing, updated the fix.
| // Get current info instead of stale oldInfo | ||
| ContainerInfo currentInfo = containers.getContainerInfo(id); | ||
| currentInfo.setState(oldState); // Revert only the state |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this needed when line 385 is reverting the change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reverting here is for transactionBuffer
siddhantsangwan
left a comment
siddhantsangwan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ashishkumar50 I left some comments. Please also add some testing for this change.
@siddhantsangwan Thanks for the review, fixed comments and added UT. |
siddhantsangwan
left a comment
siddhantsangwan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left one comment above. Otherwise LGTM.
siddhantsangwan
left a comment
siddhantsangwan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, thanks @ashishkumar50 for fixing this. Pending green CI.
3 participants
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Currently in SCM only state is synched from leader to followers using raft. In some cases sequence id in follower may lag even though state gets changed to CLOSED. More details described in Jira.
In this PR, we are also synching sequence id from leader to follower when there is state change.
What is the link to the Apache JIRA
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-13846
How was this patch tested?
Verified in docker cluster and added new test