[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6618?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14051901#comment-14051901
]
Colin Patrick McCabe commented on HDFS-6618:
--------------------------------------------
Thanks for that explanation. If we're just trying to make a minimal change to
put out the fire without fixing the (existing) leak issue, why not just move
the call to {{dir.removeFromInodeMap(removedINodes)}} up inside the first
try... catch block? Then we can file a JIRA for some refactoring which fixes
the leak issue (we'll need to discuss how)
> Remove deleted INodes from INodeMap right away
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-6618
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6618
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 2.5.0
> Reporter: Kihwal Lee
> Assignee: Kihwal Lee
> Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: HDFS-6618.AbstractList.patch,
> HDFS-6618.inodeRemover.patch, HDFS-6618.inodeRemover.v2.patch, HDFS-6618.patch
>
>
> After HDFS-6527, we have not seen the edit log corruption for weeks on
> multiple clusters until yesterday. Previously, we would see it within 30
> minutes on a cluster.
> But the same condition was reproduced even with HDFS-6527. The only
> explanation is that the RPC handler thread serving {{addBlock()}} was
> accessing stale parent value. Although nulling out parent is done inside the
> {{FSNamesystem}} and {{FSDirectory}} write lock, there is no memory barrier
> because there is no "synchronized" block involved in the process.
> I suggest making parent volatile.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
