-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
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
storage/concurrency: test and bugfix for clearing the locks when the #45080
Conversation
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.
Reviewed 5 of 5 files at r1.
Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @sumeerbhola)
pkg/storage/concurrency/lock_table.go, line 1497 at r1 (raw file):
tree := &t.locks[i] tree.mu.Lock() var locksToClear []*lockState
Heh, I noticed this over in 3f987df as well.
pkg/storage/concurrency/testdata/lock_table/size_limit_exceeded, line 52 at r1 (raw file):
local: num=0 acquire r=req1 k=c durability=r
Add a comment that we don't expect this to add a lock to the table and that we should remove this step entirely when we eventually immediately add replicated locks to the lock table.
pkg/storage/concurrency/testdata/lock_table/size_limit_exceeded, line 87 at r1 (raw file):
---- start-waiting: true
Could you add a print
right here?
pkg/storage/concurrency/testdata/lock_table/size_limit_exceeded, line 190 at r1 (raw file):
start-waiting: false acquire r=req8 k=e durability=u
Add a comment that this is whether the lock table hits its size limit and evicts everything except the discovered lock without a reservation.
size limit of the lockTable is exceeded Release note: None
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.
Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (and 1 stale) (waiting on @nvanbenschoten and @sumeerbhola)
pkg/storage/concurrency/testdata/lock_table/size_limit_exceeded, line 52 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, nvanbenschoten (Nathan VanBenschoten) wrote…
Add a comment that we don't expect this to add a lock to the table and that we should remove this step entirely when we eventually immediately add replicated locks to the lock table.
Added a slightly different comment. We won't need the unreplicated lock acquisition.
pkg/storage/concurrency/testdata/lock_table/size_limit_exceeded, line 87 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, nvanbenschoten (Nathan VanBenschoten) wrote…
Could you add a
Done
pkg/storage/concurrency/testdata/lock_table/size_limit_exceeded, line 190 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, nvanbenschoten (Nathan VanBenschoten) wrote…
Add a comment that this is whether the lock table hits its size limit and evicts everything except the discovered lock without a reservation.
Done
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.
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2.
Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (and 1 stale) (waiting on @sumeerbhola)
bors r+ |
Build failed |
bors r+ |
45039: colexec: exhaust input in sorter benchmarks r=yuzefovich a=asubiotto Some benchmarks were only calling `Next` the expected number of times and failing if a zero batch was encountered. However, operators perform cleanup when a zero batch is returned, so this cleanup step was being elided. It's also more in line with other benchmarks to exhaust the operator before finishing a benchmark. Release note: None (testing code cleanup) 45080: storage/concurrency: test and bugfix for clearing the locks when the r=sumeerbhola a=sumeerbhola size limit of the lockTable is exceeded Release note: None Co-authored-by: Alfonso Subiotto Marques <alfonso@cockroachlabs.com> Co-authored-by: sumeerbhola <sumeer@cockroachlabs.com>
Build succeeded |
size limit of the lockTable is exceeded
Release note: None