[issues/3340] bugfix concurrency issues FluxReplay.Size/SizeAndTime #3714
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
finalize head and roll it over in stead of resetting head, this means the current head will always remain a value-null in stead of being reassigned. I applied the fix for the TimeAndSizeBoundReplayBuffer
in add: `head.get().get()` concurrently could trigger null-pointer also: tail was contested and the tail would be silently dropped on write
if head does not roll over, the cache may grow beyond its limit
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This change adds a bunch of tests and improves concurrency of the Size(AndTime)BoundReplayBuffers (I believe they will be able to run in unsafe-mode after this change). The user will not see any changes to the API.
This PR fixes the current replay buffers' issue with holding onto one too many items, as the head is reused (it is final) and will only point at the current Atomic linked list's head. In stead of it being the volatile reference that is being reassigned to roll over the linked list (but always only replaying
head.get(); which leakedhead.value).This PR further fix an issue in the #add methods of both implementations that caused writes to be missed. The tail value was non-atomically read and written to, losing updates along the way.
See #3340.