Hello!
Most of our code uses CLHM as a container with fixed size. I can surely fix
LogThrottle but my main concern is H2 indexing code which uses the same
CLHM with cap.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
2018-07-27 16:38 GMT+03:00 Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>:
> Ilya,
>
> As for me, the main cause of this problem is not in CLHM itself but that
> we are using it for GridLogThrottle as container with fixed size. Suppose,
> at current moment we have no alternative and should start thinking about
> futher steps.
>
> Can you create clear reproducer for described issue with CLHM above?
>
> As workaround for GridLogThrottle we can change clear() like this:
>
> public static void clear() {
> errors.forEach((k, v) -> errors.remove(k));
> }
>
> Will it helps you to fix test?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 19:57 Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > LT stops throttling input as soon as it is unable to add any entries to
> > underlying map since it would consider itself full with 0 entries.
> >
> > I have tried to implement both suggestions, and they all have big impact
> on
> > CLHM code. I am super uncomfortable with making non-trivial edits to it.
> >
> > If the first approach is chosen, there's the need to iterate values
> instead
> > of clearing table, and if second approach is chosen, locking becomes
> > non-trivial since we're grabbing segment locks outside of segment code..
> >
> > Changing LongAdder to AtomicLong also has potential implications which
> are
> > not readily understood.
> >
> > Note that entryQ is not cleared in clear() either which can cause further
> > problems. My suggestion is still to either disallow clear() or throw this
> > class away in its entirety.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> > 2018-07-25 12:00 GMT+03:00 Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hello Ilya,
> > >
> > > Can you add more info about why and how LT for this test case prints
> log
> > > message twice?
> > >
> > > From my point, maiking clear() method to throw
> > > UnsupportedOperationException is not right
> > > fix for flaky test issues. A brief search through CLHM led me to a
> > thought
> > > that we just forgot to drop down
> > > LongAdder size when iterating over HashEntry array. We incrementing and
> > > decrementing this
> > > counter on put/remove operations by why not in clear method? Am I
> right?
> > > So, replacing LongAdder to AtomicLong
> > > sounds good to me too, as it was suggested by Ilya Lantukh. But I can
> > > mistake here.
> > >
> > > In general way, I think it's a good case to start thinking about how to
> > get
> > > rid of CLHM. E.g. we can consider this implementaion [1].
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/ben-manes/concurrentlinkedhashmap
> > >
> > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 16:45, Stanislav Lukyanov <
> stanlukya...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >
> > > > It seems that we currently use the CLHM primarily as a FIFO cache.
> > > > I see two ways around that.
> > > >
> > > > First, we could implement such LRU/FIFO cache based on another,
> > properly
> > > > supported data structure from j.u.c.
> > > > ConcurrentSkipListMap seems OK. I have a draft implementation of
> > > > LruEvictionPolicy based on it that passes functional tests,
> > > > but I haven’t benchmarked it yet.
> > > >
> > > > Second, Guava has a Cache API with a lot of configuration options
> that
> > we
> > > > could use (license is Apache, should be OK).
> > > >
> > > > Stan
> > > >
> > > > From: Nikolay Izhikov
> > > > Sent: 24 июля 2018 г. 16:27
> > > > To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: ConcurrentLinkedHashMap works incorrectly after clear()
> > > >
> > > > Hello, Ilya.
> > > >
> > > > May be we need to proceed with ticket [1] "Get rid of
> > > > org.jsr166.ConcurrentLinkedHashMap"?
> > > >
> > > > Especially, if this class is broken and buggy.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7516
> > > >
> > > > В Вт, 24/07/2018 в 16:20 +0300, Ilya Lantukh пишет:
> > > > > Thanks for revealing this issue!
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't understand why should we disallow calling clear().
> > > > >
> > > > > One way how it can be re-implemented is:
> > > > > 1. acquire write locks on all segments;
> > > > > 2. clear them;
> > > > > 3. reset size to 0;
> > > > > 4. release locks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another approach is to calculate inside
> > > > > ConcurrentLinkedHashMap.Segment.clear() how many entries you
> actually
> > > > > deleted and then call size.addAndGet(...).
> > > > >
> > > > > In both cases you'll have to replace LongAdder with AtomicLong.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:03 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello igniters!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I was working on a fix for
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9056
> > > > > > The reason for test flakiness turned out our
> > ConcurrentLinkedHashMap
> > > > (and
> > > > > > its tautological cousin GridBoundedConcurrentLinkedHashMap) is
> > > broken
> > > > :(
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you do clear(). its size counter is not updated. So sizex()
> > will
> > > > > > return the old size after clear, and if there's maxCnt set, after
> > > > several
> > > > > > clear()s it will immediately evict entries after they are
> inserted,
> > > > > > maintaining map size at 0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is scary since indexing internals make intense use of
> > > > > > ConcurrentLinkedHashMaps.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My suggestion for this fix is to avoid ever calling clear(),
> making
> > > it
> > > > > > throw UnsupportedOperationException and recreating/replacing map
> > > > instead of
> > > > > > clear()ing it. Unless somebody is going to stand up and fix
> > > > > > ConcurrentLinkedHashMap.clear() properly. Frankly speaking I'm
> > > afraid
> > > > of
> > > > > > touching this code in any non-trivial way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > --
> > > Maxim Muzafarov
> > >
> >
> --
> --
> Maxim Muzafarov
>
