[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2991?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12543873
]
Tomohito Nakayama commented on DERBY-2991:
------------------------------------------
I read current code (and Knuts comment) that shared lock is gotten instead of
latch of page and
the chance to release the latch are given to escape deadlock through trial for
lock
in order to escape deadlock.
If we don't get shared lock any more in program, we can do for escaping
deadlock is just release the latch.
Releasing the latch may results the StoredPage, which also means latch for
Page, to be removed.
If the PageCache is not removed, we can use lastRowMove of StoredPage as above.
If the PageCache is removed, there are three cases.
1: Only scanning index operation held latch and PageCache was removed. The row
is not moved.
2: Other operation also held latch and move the row and release the latch and
PageCache was removed.
3: Other operation also held latch and does not move the row but store
something and release the latch and PageCache was removed.
Seeing page version of loaded PageCache, we can distinguish 1 from others.
I think it would be not so awful to check rows in page to know 2 or 3.
> Index split deadlock
> --------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2991
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2991
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Store
> Affects Versions: 10.2.2.0, 10.3.1.4
> Environment: Windows XP, Java 6
> Reporter: Bogdan Calmac
> Attachments: derby.log, InsertSelectDeadlock.java, Repro2991.java,
> stacktraces_during_deadlock.txt
>
>
> After doing dome research on the mailing list, it appears that the index
> split deadlock is a known behaviour, so I will start by describing the
> theoretical problem first and then follow with the details of my test case.
> If you have concurrent select and insert transactions on the same table, the
> observed locking behaviour is as follows:
> - the select transaction acquires an S lock on the root block of the index
> and then waits for an S lock on some uncommitted row of the insert transaction
> - the insert transaction acquires X locks on the inserted records and if it
> needs to do an index split creates a sub-transaction that tries to acquire an
> X lock on the root block of the index
> In summary: INDEX LOCK followed by ROW LOCK + ROW LOCK followed by INDEX LOCK
> = deadlock
> In the case of my project this is an important issue (lack of concurrency
> after being forced to use table level locking) and I would like to contribute
> to the project and fix this issue (if possible). I was wondering if someone
> that knows the code can give me a few pointers on the implications of this
> issue:
> - Is this a limitation of the top-down algorithm used?
> - Would fixing it require to use a bottom up algorithm for better
> concurrency (which is certainly non trivial)?
> - Trying to break the circular locking above, I would first question why
> does the select transaction need to acquire (and hold) a lock on the root
> block of the index. Would it be possible to ensure the consistency of the
> select without locking the index?
> -----
> The attached test (InsertSelectDeadlock.java) tries to simulate a typical
> data collection application, it consists of:
> - an insert thread that inserts records in batch
> - a select thread that 'processes' the records inserted by the other thread:
> 'select * from table where id > ?'
> The derby log provides detail about the deadlock trace and
> stacktraces_during_deadlock.txt shows that the inser thread is doing an index
> split.
> The test was run on 10.2.2.0 and 10.3.1.4 with identical behaviour.
> Thanks,
> Bogdan Calmac.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
