owner: fix data race on ownerManager.campaignCancel

[fishiu]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #56053

Problem Summary: m.campaignCancel is currently set in campaignLoop goroutine, which might happen after calling campaignCancel() that access m.campaignCancel, even though it is called after CampaignOwner().

What changed and how does it work?

Set m.campaignCancel in CampaignOwner() rather than in campaignLoop goroutine, to ensure a campaignCancel() called after CampaignOwner() can always access m.campaignCancel instead of nil.

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No need to test

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

[sre-bot]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[ti-chi-bot]

Welcome @fishiu!

It looks like this is your first PR to pingcap/tidb 🎉.

I'm the bot to help you request reviewers, add labels and more, See available commands.

We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!



Thank you, and welcome to pingcap/tidb. 😃

[ti-chi-bot]

Hi @fishiu. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a pingcap member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[tiprow]

Hi @fishiu. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[lance6716]

/ok-to-test

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lance6716, tangenta

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• pkg/owner/OWNERS [tangenta]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2024-09-27 06:52:50.833050281 +0000 UTC m=+1808040.573474235: ☑️ agreed by lance6716.
• 2024-09-27 07:02:41.366122237 +0000 UTC m=+1808631.106546176: ☑️ agreed by tangenta.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 75.3609%. Comparing base (73f1cfe) to head (4dd52fb).
Report is 248 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #56362        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   73.3876%   75.3609%   +1.9732%     
================================================
  Files          1620       1622         +2     
  Lines        447041     447797       +756     
================================================
+ Hits         328073     337464      +9391     
+ Misses        98869      89840      -9029     
- Partials      20099      20493       +394     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	48.9985% <100.0000%> (?)
unit	72.4809% <100.0000%> (+0.0027%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	52.9478% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	52.2712% <ø> (+6.7386%)	⬆️

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-5.4: #57128.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request could not be created: failed to create pull request against pingcap/tidb#release-7.1 from head ti-chi-bot:cherry-pick-56362-to-release-7.1: status code 422 not one of [201], body: {"message":"Validation Failed","errors":[{"resource":"PullRequest","code":"custom","message":"A pull request already exists for ti-chi-bot:cherry-pick-56362-to-release-7.1."}],"documentation_url":"https://docs.github.com/rest/pulls/pulls#create-a-pull-request","status":"422"}

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-8.1: #57129.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-6.5: #57130.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-6.1: #57131.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.5: #57132.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-8.5: #57133.