ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>
Subject Support for starting transaction in another thread IGNITE-4887
Date Mon, 03 Jul 2017 12:14:49 GMT
Consider thread *Th1* started transaction *Tx1*, done some actions, and is
calling commit (GridNearTxLocal#commit -> commitNearTxLocalAsync). And
concurrently thread *Th2 *is calling the same commit on* Tx1*. Now, if you
look into code :

public IgniteInternalFuture<IgniteInternalTx> commitNearTxLocalAsync() {
    if (log.isDebugEnabled())
        log.debug("Committing near local tx: " + this);

    if (fastFinish()) {

        cctx.tm().fastFinishTx(this, true);


        return new GridFinishedFuture<>((IgniteInternalTx)this);

    final IgniteInternalFuture<?> prepareFut = prepareNearTxLocal();//1

    GridNearTxFinishFuture fut = commitFut;

    if (fut == null &&
        !COMMIT_FUT_UPD.compareAndSet(this, null, fut = new
GridNearTxFinishFuture<>(cctx, this, true)))
        return commitFut;//2

    cctx.mvcc().addFuture(fut, fut.futureId());//3

Both threads would end up on //1 .Then.
*Th1 *would create *commitFut* in //2 and add it to mvcc //3
*Th2 *concurrently would evaluate //2 into true(it sees fut not null now)
and put fut into mvcc //3 which would lead to exception.

So, there is no locking sections (mutex) here

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org>
Date: пн, 3 июл. 2017 г. в 14:16
Subject: Re: Support for starting transaction in another thread IGNITE-4887
To: ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>

Alex, what do you mean by "multiple threads committing?". Transaction
should be committed only by one thread and only once.

Can you please provide a test or a code snippet to demonstrate the issue
you mentioned.


Im looking into current implementation of commitNearTxLocalAsync() , and in
case of multiple concurrent threads committing there would be exception
thrown by

cctx.mvcc().addFuture(fut, fut.futureId());

Is it correct behavior ?


*Best Regards,*

*Kuznetsov Aleksey*

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