[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8877?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Dave Latham updated HBASE-8877: ------------------------------- Attachment: HBASE-8877-refCounts-v2.patch Thanks, Ted, for taking a look. Sorry for changing the same file while you were looking. {quote}Should an assertion (or exception) be placed in the if block above ?{quote} The same behavior is there in the previous patch (v7) (and nearly the same in trunk as well) so it's not really a change. That said, this state cannot happen as I read the code, but if it did then the row locks may be stuck, so an exception sounds good to me so that it would be louder. {quote}Can RowLock class be package private ?{quote} It should be the same scope as the getRowLock method (needed for clients to keep references and release them) which I believe we decided to be public (for CPs for example). I've attached HBASE-8877-refCounts-v2.patch with the change to throw an exception on inconsistent row lock state. > Reentrant row locks > ------------------- > > Key: HBASE-8877 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8877 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Coprocessors, regionserver > Reporter: Dave Latham > Assignee: Dave Latham > Fix For: 0.95.2 > > Attachments: hbase-8877-0.94-microbenchmark.txt, > HBASE-8877-0.94.patch, HBASE-8877-0.94-v2.patch, HBASE-8877.patch, > hbase-8877-refCounts-microbenchmarks.txt, HBASE-8877-refCounts.patch, > HBASE-8877-refCounts-v2.patch, HBASE-8877-v2.patch, HBASE-8877-v3.patch, > hbase-8877-v4-microbenchmark.txt, HBASE-8877-v4.patch, HBASE-8877-v5.patch, > HBASE-8877-v6.patch, HBASE-8877-v7.patch > > > HBASE-8806 revealed performance problems with batch mutations failing to > reacquire the same row locks. It looks like HBASE-8806 will use a less > intrusive change for 0.94 to have batch mutations track their own row locks > and not attempt to reacquire them. Another approach will be to support > reentrant row locks directly. This allows simplifying a great deal of > calling code to no longer track and pass around lock ids. > One affect this change will have is changing the RegionObserver coprocessor's > methods preBatchMutate and postBatchMutate from taking a > {{MiniBatchOperationInProgress<Pair<Mutation, Integer>> miniBatchOp}} to > taking a {{MiniBatchOperationInProgress<Mutation> miniBatchOp}}. I don't > believe CPs should be relying on these lock ids, but that's a potential > incompatibility. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira