[fix][broker] topic policy deadlock block metadata thread. #23786
Conversation
BewareMyPower
added
release/3.3.4
release/4.0.2
type/bug
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In short, I don't think this change fixes the deadlock.
Deadlock analysis
In thread A (broker-client-shared-internal-executor-5-1):
return topics.computeIfAbsent(topicName.toString(), (tpName) ->
loadOrCreatePersistentTopic(tpName, createIfMissing, properties, topicPolicies));It already holds the lock of SystemTopicBasedTopicPoliciesService#policyCacheInitMap (via policyCacheInitMap.compute method) and tries to acquire the lock of BrokerService#topics.
Thread B (pulsar-io-3-6) is blocked at the same line, while it already holds the lock of BrokerService#topics and it goes into the loadOrCreatePersistentTopic method. However, it eventually calls SystemTopicBasedTopicPoliciesService.getTopicPoliciesAsync and tries to acquire the lock of SystemTopicBasedTopicPoliciesService#policyCacheInitMap.
Thread C (metadata-store-10-1) is just blocked at acquiring the lock of policyCacheInitMap like what thread B is blocked. However, the root cause is the deadlock between thread A and B.
Why I think the changes do not work
You've made the following changes:
- Move the
policyCacheInitMap.computecall fromthenAccepttothenComposeAsync. - Don't call
whenCompletein thethenComposeAsyncmethod.
The 1st change just moves the thread C from the metadata store thread pool to the CompletableFuture#ASYNC_POOL thread pool. It doesn't affect the deadlock between thread A and B. The 2nd change actually does not make a difference because in the existing code, it's already called in the thread pool of CompletableFuture#ASYNC_POOL via CompletableFuture.runAsync.
|
The public CompletableFuture<ManagedLedgerFactory> getManagedLedgerFactoryForTopic(TopicName topicName) {
// NOTE: it calls `getTopicPoliciesBypassSystemTopic` and tries to acquire the lock of
//. `SystemTopicBasedTopicPoliciesService#policyCacheInitMap`
return getManagedLedgerConfig(topicName)called by protected CompletableFuture<Map<String, String>> fetchTopicPropertiesAsync(TopicName topicName) {
if (!topicName.isPartitioned()) {
return getManagedLedgerFactoryForTopic(topicName).thenCompose(called by private void checkOwnershipAndCreatePersistentTopic(/* ... */) {
TopicName topicName = TopicName.get(topic);
pulsar.getNamespaceService().isServiceUnitActiveAsync(topicName)
.thenAccept(isActive -> {
if (isActive) {
CompletableFuture<Map<String, String>> propertiesFuture;
if (properties == null) {
//Read properties from storage when loading topic.
propertiesFuture = fetchTopicPropertiesAsync(topicName); // HEREcalled by protected CompletableFuture<Optional<Topic>> loadOrCreatePersistentTopic(final String topic,
boolean createIfMissing, Map<String, String> properties, @Nullable TopicPolicies topicPolicies) {
/* ... */
checkTopicNsOwnership(topic)
.thenRun(() -> {
final Semaphore topicLoadSemaphore = topicLoadRequestSemaphore.get();
if (topicLoadSemaphore.tryAcquire()) {
checkOwnershipAndCreatePersistentTopic(topic, createIfMissing, topicFuture, // HERE
properties, topicPolicies);Here I think the correct fix is to move |
BewareMyPower
requested review from
Technoboy-,
codelipenghui,
RobertIndie and
poorbarcode
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #23786 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 73.57% 74.16% +0.59%
+ Complexity 32624 31764 -860
============================================
Files 1877 1853 -24
Lines 139502 143369 +3867
Branches 15299 16277 +978
============================================
+ Hits 102638 106331 +3693
+ Misses 28908 28669 -239
- Partials 7956 8369 +413
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
...ker/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/service/SystemTopicBasedTopicPoliciesService.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
@mattisonchao Please create a separate PR for cherry-picking to branch-3.3 since there are major merge conflicts. The merge conflicts seem to be mainly due to lack of #23319 changes in branch-3.3 . |
(cherry picked from commit 86f8a84)
Motivation
Modifications
Verifying this change
Documentation
doc-not-needed