Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement GC_REPL_REQ Based on DSN to Prevent Resource Leaks #576
Implement GC_REPL_REQ Based on DSN to Prevent Resource Leaks #576
Changes from 5 commits
15cd26c
94e5c87
37dc0e4
ae19ee5
aed083e
79cdfa5
5a69c40
0c52055
6439794
45d52fa
8ccd8ee
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
remove the log.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Moved it to LOGI, this logging is helpful as we hit mem-leak twice around same place that in certain cases we dont remove rreq from m_repl_key_req_map. The first one is what you found and fixed that we forgot to remove in on_commit, this patch is the second time...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Better keep a metrics of this repl related map's of count and total memory usage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will create lot of logs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If its already committed on follower, why check for expire. we can GC it immediately.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah we can do that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
not adding to expired_rreqs ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is very risky to remove a rreq from state-machine as the time you check it , it might in the middle of "commit" or "pre-commit" which will causing NPE/assert.
As we ensure logs are added to state-machine after data written, I dont find a case where we can have a request expiring in state-machine , so I am intentionally to remove this for loop (as said in the FIXME), but trying to verify through logging to get confidence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While we are iterating, we delete or unlink from the same map. Is it safe ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sorry I didnt get this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
iterate_repl_reqs is iterating through m_lsn_req_map and unlink is erasing it from m_lsn_req_map. Its not iterator so it looks safe.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
there might a very small case that some change happens between line 229 and line 231.
my suggestion is using
erase_if_equal
insteadhttps://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/30a4e783a7618f17a5b24048625872e363068887/folly/concurrency/ConcurrentHashMap.h#L497