Skip to content
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

Fixed RPM / Deb / APK packages and enabled CI build #11

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Sep 30, 2022

Conversation

merlimat
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation

Fixed RPM / Deb / APK packages and enabled CI build

@merlimat merlimat added this to the 3.0.0 milestone Sep 29, 2022
@merlimat merlimat marked this pull request as ready for review September 29, 2022 20:29
Comment on lines -26 to +25
if [[ -z $BUILD_IMAGE ]]; then
# pull the image from DockerHub by default
docker pull $IMAGE_NAME
else
docker build --platform linux/amd64 -t $IMAGE_NAME $ROOT_DIR/pulsar-client-cpp/pkg/deb
fi
IMAGE_NAME=apachepulsar/pulsar-build:debian-9-2.11-x86_64
Copy link
Contributor

@BewareMyPower BewareMyPower Sep 30, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Back to the issue that has been discussed before, what's the process if I want to update the Dockerfile of the base image? How should I name the image?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ideally, we should use unique image tags.

At this point the process would be to update the Dockerfile, build the image locally and push it to Dockerhub with the same tag. All the builds after that will sync and fetch the updated image.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Got it. We should include this process when we added documents for the release process.

@merlimat merlimat merged commit 40c7406 into apache:main Sep 30, 2022
@merlimat merlimat deleted the ci-build branch September 30, 2022 18:53
merlimat pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 30, 2023
#334)

* Fix possible deadlock of Future when adding a listener after completed

### Motivation

There is a case that deadlock could happen for a `Future`. Assume there
is a `Promise` and its `Future`.

1. Call `Future::addListener` to add a listener that tries to acquire a
   user-provided mutex (`lock`).
2. Thread 1: Acquire `lock` first.
3. Thread 2: Call `Promise::setValue`, the listener will be triggered
   first before completed. Since `lock` is held by Thread 1, the
   listener will be blocked.
4. Thread 1: Call `Future::addListener`, since it detects the
   `InternalState::completed_` is true, it will call `get` to retrieve
   the result and value.

Then, deadlock happens:
- Thread 1 waits for `lock` is released, and then complete
  `InternalState::future_`.
- Thread 2 holds `lock` but wait for `InternalState::future_` is
  completed.

In a real world case, if we acquire a lock before
`ProducerImpl::closeAsync`, then another thread call `setValue` in
`ClientConnection::handleSuccess` and the callback of
`createProducerAsync` tries to acquire the lock, `handleSuccess` will be
blocked. Then in `closeAsync`, the current thread will be blocked in:

```c++
    cnx->sendRequestWithId(Commands::newCloseProducer(producerId_, requestId), requestId)
        .addListener([self, callback](Result result, const ResponseData&) { callback(result); });
```

The stacks:

```
Thread 1:
#11 0x00007fab80da2173 in pulsar::InternalState<...>::complete (this=0x3d53e7a10, result=..., value=...) at lib/Futre.h:61
#13 pulsar::ClientConnection::handleSuccess (this=this@entry=0x2214bc000, success=...) at lib/ClientConnection.cc:1552

Thread 2:
#8  get (result=..., this=0x3d53e7a10) at lib/Future.h:69
#9  pulsar::InternalState<...>::addListener (this=this@entry=0x3d53e7a10, listener=...) at lib/Future.h:51
#11 0x00007fab80e8dc4e in pulsar::ProducerImpl::closeAsync at lib/ProducerImpl.cc:794
```

There are two points that make the deadlock:
1. We use `completed_` to represent if the future is completed. However,
   after it's true, the future might not be completed because the value
   is not set and the listeners are not completed.
2. If `addListener` is called after it's completed, we still push the
   listener to `listeners_` so that previous listeners could be executed
   before the new listener. This guarantee is unnecessarily strong.

### Modifications

First, complete the future before calling the listeners.

Then, use an enum to represent the status:
- INITIAL: `complete` has not been called
- COMPLETING: when the 1st time `complete` is called, the status will
  change from INITIAL to COMPLETING
- COMPLETED: the future is completed.

Besides, implementation of `Future` is simplified.
#299 fixes a possible
mutex crash by introducing the `std::future`. However, the root cause is
the conditional variable is not used correctly:

> Even if the shared variable is atomic, it must be modified while owning the mutex to correctly publish the modification to the waiting thread.

See https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/condition_variable

The simplest way to fix
#298 is just adding
`lock.lock()` before `state->condition.notify_all();`.

* Acquire lock again

* Add initial value
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants