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

Make Transport Shard Bulk Action Async #39793

Merged

Conversation

original-brownbear
Copy link
Member

@original-brownbear original-brownbear commented Mar 7, 2019

This is a dependency of #39504

Motivation:
By refactoring TransportShardBulkAction#shardOperationOnPrimary to async, we enable using DeterministicTaskQueue based tests to run indexing operations. This was previously impossible since we were blocking on the write thread until the update thread finished the mapping update.
With this change, the mapping update will trigger a new task in the write queue instead.
This change significantly enhances the amount of coverage we get from SnapshotResiliencyTests (and other potential future tests) when it comes to tracking down concurrency issues with distributed state machines.

The logical change is effectively all in TransportShardBulkAction, the rest of the changes is then simply mechanically moving the caller code and tests to being async and passing the ActionListener down.

Since the move to async would've added more parameters to the private static steps in this logic, I decided to inline and dry up (between delete and update) the logic as much as I could instead of passing the listener + wait-consumer down through all of them.

@original-brownbear original-brownbear added :Distributed Indexing/Distributed A catch all label for anything in the Distributed Area. Please avoid if you can. >refactoring v8.0.0 v7.2.0 labels Mar 7, 2019
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/es-distributed

protected void doRun() {
while (context.hasMoreOperationsToExecute()) {
if (executeBulkItemRequest(context, updateHelper, nowInMillisSupplier, mappingUpdater, waitForMappingUpdate,
ActionListener.wrap(v -> executor.execute(this), listener::onFailure)) == false) {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We are moving from the update to the write thread here after a mapping update updates the cluster state. I'm a little unsure about this tbh. Is it a problem that when we're under pressure and could get a bulk rejection that the mapping update could have happened but the write then got rejected?
I assumed not, as the same kind of inconsistency can happen if the ES process dies after the mapping update in the current implementation, but thought I should point that out (obviously this is a much more likely spot now when bulk rejections happen).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The main reason an earlier refactoring of this class did not move this bit to async code was that this part here is problematic. We might have partially executed the batch and generated sequence numbers for it. Failing the request here now is not an option as it will otherwise have the replica go out of sync with the primary, lead to gaps in the history on the replica and block local and global checkpoint advancement, given that the partially executed request won't be replicated.
There are two options to explore: 1) forcing this onto the write executor or 2) marking the current and all subsequent bulk items as failed, and then replicate the request normally to the replicas. I would be interested in @bleskes's thoughts on this.

Also this will require extensive testing given the brittle nature of it.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Indeed we avoided doing this in order to not have to deal with rejections / not to have a way bypass queue sizes (which will happen with force execution) at the time. I think the added value of the extra testing coverage merits exploring our options here. I'm inclined to go with the second suggestion (mark the rest of the operations as failed on rejection). I'm not too worried about having committed the mapping changes but ending up not using them. I think that just an edge case and as Armin mentioned - it can happen anyway.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ywelsch @bleskes thanks for taking a look. I implemented option 2 real quick in f3b59c2 (on bulk reject just loop through all remaining requests and fail them). If this looks ok, I'd look into adding test coverage for the scenario mentioned above?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think I was also able to write a valid test (at least I reproduced the issue that @ywelsch mentioned) in a3c8cac. Take a look when you have a sec :)

@original-brownbear
Copy link
Member Author

Jenkins run elasticsearch-ci/packaging-sample (vagrant timed out)

@original-brownbear
Copy link
Member Author

Jenkins run elasticsearch-ci/packaging-sample (vagrant timed out again)

@original-brownbear
Copy link
Member Author

@ywelsch @dnhatn any chance one of you could take a look here? This one isn't super urgent but it's blocking further progress on fixing snapshot repository stability since it holds up #39504 so it would be great if we could continue here next week or so :)

@original-brownbear
Copy link
Member Author

Jenkins run elasticsearch-ci/2 (Vbox failed to come up)

original-brownbear added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 7, 2019
* Fixing minor mistake from #39793 here, we should be using `run` so that the `onFailure` path is executed if the first invocation of this `Runnable` fails for an unexpected reason
jasontedor added a commit to jasontedor/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Apr 7, 2019
* elastic/master:
  Fix Failing to Handle Ex. in TransportShardBulkAction (elastic#40923)
  Be lenient when parsing build flavor and type on the wire (elastic#40734)
  Make Transport Shard Bulk Action Async (elastic#39793)
original-brownbear added a commit to original-brownbear/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Apr 7, 2019
* Thanks to elastic#39793 dynamic mapping updates don't contain blocking operations anymore so we don't have to manually put the mapping in this test and can keep it a little simpler
original-brownbear added a commit to original-brownbear/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Apr 8, 2019
* In elastic#39793 this assertion was added under the assumption that no exceptions would be thrown in this method, which turned out not to be correct and at the very least `org.elasticsearch.index.shard.IndexShardClosedException` can be thrown by `org.elasticsearch.index.shard.IndexShard.sync`
* Closes elastic#40933
original-brownbear added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 8, 2019
* Remove Overly Strict Assertion in TransportShardBulkAction

* In #39793 this assertion was added under the assumption that no exceptions would be thrown in this method, which turned out not to be correct and at the very least `org.elasticsearch.index.shard.IndexShardClosedException` can be thrown by `org.elasticsearch.index.shard.IndexShard.sync`
* Closes #40933
original-brownbear added a commit to original-brownbear/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Apr 9, 2019
* Prior to elastic#39793 exceptions for the primary write and delete actions
were bubbled up to the caller so that closed shards would be handled accordingly upstream.
 elastic#39793 accidentally changed the behaviour here and simply marked those exceptions as bulk item failures on the request and kept processing bulk request items on closed shards.
* This fix returns to that behaviour and adjusts the listeners passed in `TransportReplicationAction`
such that they behave like the previous synchronous `catch`.
   * Dried up the exception handling slightly for that and inlined all the listeners to make the logic a little
easier to follow
* Reenable SplitIndexIT now that clsoed shards are properly handled again
* Closes elastic#40944
original-brownbear added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 9, 2019
* Prior to #39793 exceptions for the primary write and delete actions
were bubbled up to the caller so that closed shards would be handled accordingly upstream.
 #39793 accidentally changed the behaviour here and simply marked those exceptions as bulk item failures on the request and kept processing bulk request items on closed shards.
* This fix returns to that behaviour and adjusts the listeners passed in `TransportReplicationAction`
such that they behave like the previous synchronous `catch`.
   * Dried up the exception handling slightly for that and inlined all the listeners to make the logic a little
easier to follow
* Reenable SplitIndexIT now that clsoed shards are properly handled again
* Closes #40944
original-brownbear added a commit to original-brownbear/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2019
This is a dependency of elastic#39504

Motivation:
By refactoring `TransportShardBulkAction#shardOperationOnPrimary` to async, we enable using `DeterministicTaskQueue` based tests to run indexing operations. This was previously impossible since we were blocking on the `write` thread until the `update` thread finished the mapping update.
With this change, the mapping update will trigger a new task in the `write` queue instead.
This change significantly enhances the amount of coverage we get from `SnapshotResiliencyTests` (and other potential future tests) when it comes to tracking down concurrency issues with distributed state machines.

The logical change is effectively all in `TransportShardBulkAction`, the rest of the changes is then simply mechanically moving the caller code and tests to being async and passing the `ActionListener` down.

Since the move to async would've added more parameters to the `private static` steps in this logic, I decided to inline and dry up (between delete and update) the logic as much as I could instead of passing the listener + wait-consumer down through all of them.
original-brownbear added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2019
This is a dependency of #39504

Motivation:
By refactoring `TransportShardBulkAction#shardOperationOnPrimary` to async, we enable using `DeterministicTaskQueue` based tests to run indexing operations. This was previously impossible since we were blocking on the `write` thread until the `update` thread finished the mapping update.
With this change, the mapping update will trigger a new task in the `write` queue instead.
This change significantly enhances the amount of coverage we get from `SnapshotResiliencyTests` (and other potential future tests) when it comes to tracking down concurrency issues with distributed state machines.

The logical change is effectively all in `TransportShardBulkAction`, the rest of the changes is then simply mechanically moving the caller code and tests to being async and passing the `ActionListener` down.

Since the move to async would've added more parameters to the `private static` steps in this logic, I decided to inline and dry up (between delete and update) the logic as much as I could instead of passing the listener + wait-consumer down through all of them.
original-brownbear added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2019
* Thanks to #39793 dynamic mapping updates don't contain blocking operations anymore so we don't have to manually put the mapping in this test and can keep it a little simpler
original-brownbear added a commit to original-brownbear/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Apr 26, 2019
* Thanks to elastic#39793 dynamic mapping updates don't contain blocking operations anymore so we don't have to manually put the mapping in this test and can keep it a little simpler
original-brownbear added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 26, 2019
* Thanks to #39793 dynamic mapping updates don't contain blocking operations anymore so we don't have to manually put the mapping in this test and can keep it a little simpler
gurkankaymak pushed a commit to gurkankaymak/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request May 27, 2019
This is a dependency of elastic#39504 

Motivation: 
By refactoring `TransportShardBulkAction#shardOperationOnPrimary` to async, we enable using `DeterministicTaskQueue` based tests to run indexing operations. This was previously impossible since we were blocking on the `write` thread until the `update` thread finished the mapping update.
With this change, the mapping update will trigger a new task in the `write` queue instead. 
This change significantly enhances the amount of coverage we get from `SnapshotResiliencyTests` (and other potential future tests) when it comes to tracking down concurrency issues with distributed state machines.

The logical change is effectively all in `TransportShardBulkAction`, the rest of the changes is then simply mechanically moving the caller code and tests to being async and passing the `ActionListener` down.

Since the move to async would've added more parameters to the `private static` steps in this logic, I decided to inline and dry up (between delete and update) the logic as much as I could instead of passing the listener + wait-consumer down through all of them.
gurkankaymak pushed a commit to gurkankaymak/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request May 27, 2019
* Fixing minor mistake from elastic#39793 here, we should be using `run` so that the `onFailure` path is executed if the first invocation of this `Runnable` fails for an unexpected reason
gurkankaymak pushed a commit to gurkankaymak/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request May 27, 2019
)

* Remove Overly Strict Assertion in TransportShardBulkAction

* In elastic#39793 this assertion was added under the assumption that no exceptions would be thrown in this method, which turned out not to be correct and at the very least `org.elasticsearch.index.shard.IndexShardClosedException` can be thrown by `org.elasticsearch.index.shard.IndexShard.sync`
* Closes elastic#40933
gurkankaymak pushed a commit to gurkankaymak/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request May 27, 2019
* Prior to elastic#39793 exceptions for the primary write and delete actions
were bubbled up to the caller so that closed shards would be handled accordingly upstream.
 elastic#39793 accidentally changed the behaviour here and simply marked those exceptions as bulk item failures on the request and kept processing bulk request items on closed shards.
* This fix returns to that behaviour and adjusts the listeners passed in `TransportReplicationAction`
such that they behave like the previous synchronous `catch`.
   * Dried up the exception handling slightly for that and inlined all the listeners to make the logic a little
easier to follow
* Reenable SplitIndexIT now that clsoed shards are properly handled again
* Closes elastic#40944
gurkankaymak pushed a commit to gurkankaymak/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request May 27, 2019
* Thanks to elastic#39793 dynamic mapping updates don't contain blocking operations anymore so we don't have to manually put the mapping in this test and can keep it a little simpler
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
:Distributed Indexing/Distributed A catch all label for anything in the Distributed Area. Please avoid if you can. >refactoring v7.2.0 v8.0.0-alpha1
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants