ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Date Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:58:14 GMT
Yakov,

sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR,
can you please do the review again?

Thanks!
Vladisav

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Hi Yakov,
>> >
>> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
>> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
>> >
>> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
>> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
>> > release).
>> >
>> > Best regrads,
>> > Vladisav
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@gridgain.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > --
>> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
>> > > *GridGain Systems*
>> > > www.gridgain.com
>> > >
>> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org>:
>> > >
>> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>> > > >
>> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>> > > >
>> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding
>> optimized-classnames.properties.
>> > > > Can you please respond in ticket?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --Yakov
>> > > >
>> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org>:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning
>> ticket
>> > to
>> > > >> myself.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --Yakov
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>> vladisavj@gmail.com>:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Hi,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to
the
>> next
>> > > >>> release.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Best regards,
>> > > >>> Vladisav
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> > Folks,
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock()
has
>> the
>> > > same
>> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology
cannot be
>> > > changed
>> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit
lock is
>> > > held.
>> > > >>> The
>> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the
lock()
>> issue
>> > > >>> can be
>> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
>> > > currently
>> > > >>> > works.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name"
>> message,
>> > my
>> > > >>> first
>> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups
>> which
>> > led
>> > > >>> to
>> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can
you please
>> > > >>> re-test
>> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for
data
>> > > structures?
>> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore
issue when
>> > I'm
>> > > >>> done
>> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message