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

fix: splitstore: remove deadlock around waiting for sync #10855

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

arajasek
Copy link
Contributor

Related Issues

#10788?

#10641 introduced the possibility of a deadlock, because Put might sleep waiting on sync to catch up while holding the all-important txnLk. This is definitely wrong, we also just don't want Puts to be yielding and sleeping.

Proposed Changes

Add a non-yielding version of walkObjectIncomplete that gets called by Put and PutMany.

Additional Info

I checked thoroughly, but am still not confident that other methods more directly involved in compaction don't have the same problem. This entire locking mechanism is...tricky.

Checklist

Before you mark the PR ready for review, please make sure that:

  • Commits have a clear commit message.
  • PR title is in the form of of <PR type>: <area>: <change being made>
    • example: fix: mempool: Introduce a cache for valid signatures
    • PR type: fix, feat, build, chore, ci, docs, perf, refactor, revert, style, test
    • area, e.g. api, chain, state, market, mempool, multisig, networking, paych, proving, sealing, wallet, deps
  • New features have usage guidelines and / or documentation updates in
  • Tests exist for new functionality or change in behavior
  • CI is green

if err := s.checkYield(); err != nil {
return sz, err
if yielding {
if err := s.checkYield(); err != nil {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Another approach that is a bit cleaner is to change this (and maybe walkObject) to always call checkClosing, then do a checkYield in every call to walkBlock. Its probably fine for sync protection to just do yielding once for every block walked during compaction.

@arajasek
Copy link
Contributor Author

Superseded by #10857 because GH confused

@arajasek arajasek closed this May 11, 2023
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