Skip to content

KAFKA-13971: Fix atomicity violations caused by improper usage of ConcurrentHashMap - part2 #12281

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
divijvaidya wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

KAFKA-13971: Fix atomicity violations caused by improper usage of ConcurrentHashMap - part2 #12281

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
5ec7097
Fix atomicity violations caused by improper usage of ConcurrentHashMap
divijvaidya Jun 10, 2022
ae59d3e
Add missing log line
divijvaidya Jun 10, 2022
5e4401f
revert change to Delegating class loader
divijvaidya Jun 22, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions ...java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/metrics/RocksDBMetricsRecordingTrigger.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -32,12 +32,12 @@ public RocksDBMetricsRecordingTrigger(final Time time) {

public void addMetricsRecorder(final RocksDBMetricsRecorder metricsRecorder) {
final String metricsRecorderName = metricsRecorderName(metricsRecorder);
if (metricsRecordersToTrigger.containsKey(metricsRecorderName)) {
final RocksDBMetricsRecorder existingRocksDBMetricsRecorder = metricsRecordersToTrigger.putIfAbsent(metricsRecorderName, metricsRecorder);

@C0urante C0urante Jul 14, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a nice improvement in readability, but are we certain it's necessary? I commented on the change to the plugin scanning logic in Connect because I'm familiar with that part of the code base; I don't have the same familiarity with Streams, though.

I think it's fine to merge this change, but if this method isn't intended to be invoked concurrently, we should modify the PR title so that the commit message doesn't imply this is a bug fix and instead recognizes it as a cosmetic improvement.

@mdedetrich mdedetrich Aug 3, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree with @C0urante here, if the method isn't meant to be invoked in a concurrent situation then we should either revert to the original containsKey OR add a comment along the lines of "Currently this code isn't called in a concurrent situation"

@divijvaidya divijvaidya Aug 4, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for your code review folks. On deeper analysis, it doesn't look like that this code will be invoked by multiple threads. I will discard this PR now and I thank you again for looking into this PR.

if (existingRocksDBMetricsRecorder != null) {
throw new IllegalStateException("RocksDB metrics recorder for store \"" + metricsRecorder.storeName() +
"\" of task " + metricsRecorder.taskId().toString() + " has already been added. "
+ "This is a bug in Kafka Streams.");
}
metricsRecordersToTrigger.put(metricsRecorderName, metricsRecorder);
}

public void removeMetricsRecorder(final RocksDBMetricsRecorder metricsRecorder) {
Expand Down