[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1510?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=51158#action_51158
]
Christopher Hunt commented on CAMEL-1510:
-----------------------------------------
Hi Martin,
Thank you for replying.
I presume by synchronised you mean that the enqueueExchange and sendExchanges
lock on some shared mutex.
I wonder with your suggestion if you might also have to try synchronising with
other things that can then be overloaded e.g. isInBatchCompleted and
isOutBatchCompleted. Who would know what these methods could eventually be
doing?
Personally I prefer to see the batch sender awake from known conditions i.e.
timeout or exchange enqueued. For some reason I also feel that Interrupts are a
little brutal and should be used sparingly.
In addition I think that what I have proposed (albeit untested) would be more
efficient as there is only one lock in play. The present solution has the lock
associated within the blocking queue. You would of course being adding another
lock with the potential for a deadlock.
Thanks for the continued dialogue.
Kind regards,
Christopher
> BatchProcessor interrupt has side effects
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: CAMEL-1510
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1510
> Project: Apache Camel
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: camel-core
> Affects Versions: 1.6.0, 2.0-M1
> Environment: Mac OS X
> Reporter: Christopher Hunt
> Priority: Critical
>
> I have noticed that the BatchProcessor class uses the Thread class interrupt
> method to wake the run loop from sleeping within the enqueueExchange method.
> The unfortunate side effect of this is that if the run loop is in the middle
> of processing exchanges, and the processing involves something slow like
> establishing a JMS connection over SSL or queuing to an asynchronous
> processor, then the processing can become interrupted. The consequence of
> this side effect is that the batch sender thread rarely gets the opportunity
> to complete properly and exceptions regarding the interrupt are thrown.
> This all became apparent during some performance testing that resulted in
> continuously adding exchanges to the aggregator, the threshold becoming
> reached, and then trying to enqueue the aggregated result to a JMS queue.
> If my analysis of the BatchProcessor is correct then I would recommend finer
> grained concurrency controls being used instead of relying upon interrupting
> a thread. Perhaps something like the following (untested) re-write of the
> sender:
> {code}
> private class BatchSender extends Thread {
> private Queue<Exchange> queue;
> private boolean exchangeQueued = false;
> private Lock queueMutex = new ReentrantLock();
> private Condition queueCondition = queueMutex.newCondition();
> public BatchSender() {
> super("Batch Sender");
> this.queue = new LinkedList<Exchange>();
> }
> public void cancel() {
> interrupt();
> }
> private void drainQueueTo(Collection<Exchange> collection, int
> batchSize) {
> for (int i = 0; i < batchSize; ++i) {
> Exchange e = queue.poll();
> if (e != null) {
> collection.add(e);
> } else {
> break;
> }
> }
> }
> public void enqueueExchange(Exchange exchange) {
> queueMutex.lock();
> try {
> queue.add(exchange);
> exchangeQueued = true;
> } finally {
> queueMutex.unlock();
> }
> }
> @Override
> public void run() {
> queueMutex.lock();
> try {
> do {
> try {
> if (!exchangeQueued) {
> queueCondition.await(batchTimeout,
> TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
> if (!exchangeQueued) {
> drainQueueTo(collection, batchSize);
> }
> }
> if (exchangeQueued) {
> exchangeQueued = false;
> queueMutex.unlock();
> try {
> while (isInBatchCompleted(queue.size())) {
> queueMutex.lock();
> try {
> drainQueueTo(collection, batchSize);
> } finally {
> queueMutex.unlock();
> }
> }
> if (!isOutBatchCompleted()) {
> continue;
> }
> } finally {
> queueMutex.lock();
> }
> }
> queueMutex.unlock();
> try {
> try {
> sendExchanges();
> } catch (Exception e) {
> getExceptionHandler().handleException(e);
> }
> } finally {
> queueMutex.lock();
> }
> } catch (InterruptedException e) {
> break;
> }
> } while (true);
> } finally {
> queueMutex.unlock();
> }
> }
> private void sendExchanges() throws Exception {
> Iterator<Exchange> iter = collection.iterator();
> while (iter.hasNext()) {
> Exchange exchange = iter.next();
> iter.remove();
> processExchange(exchange);
> }
> }
> }
> {code}
> I have replaced the concurrent queue with a regular linked list and mutexed
> its access. In addition any queuing of exchanges is noted. This should result
> in less locking.
> The main change though is that queuing an exchange does not interrupt the
> batch sender's current activity.
> I hope that this sample is useful.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
