[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1510?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=51162#action_51162
]
Martin Krasser commented on CAMEL-1510:
---------------------------------------
Christopher, my intention was to provide an implementation that signals the
batch sender to stop waiting when the batch size has been reached and to
continue processing. I think we should keep that. This is especially useful
when the batch timeout is set to a high value. It prevents the batch sender
from unecessarily waiting when the batch size has already been reached. From
what I've seen in your proposal this is not the case i.e. the batch sender
continues to wait even if the in-batch size has been reached before the
timeout. Changing cancellation to use {{interrupt()}} makes sense to me.
Maybe we should also consider to have a shared implementation for the
wait/signal/cancel mechanisms for the {{BatchProcessor}} and the
{{StreamResequencer}}, otherwise, we'd need to implement similar things in two
different places. Do you want to provide a patch file plus some tests or should
we wait for comments from one of the commiters how to proceed?
> 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.
