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

[BugFix] fix concurrent issue between primary index unload and compaction #49341

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 6, 2024

Conversation

luohaha
Copy link
Contributor

@luohaha luohaha commented Aug 2, 2024

Why I'm doing:

When Primary Index call unload because of full clone or something else, there could be a background index compaction task was still running. Here is a concurrency safe issue.

What I'm doing:

  1. Check if all input l2 has been removed. If not, that means index has been rebuilt, we need to abort this index compaction task,
  2. Using std::shared_ptr instead of std::unique_ptr, so running index compaction task could finish safely.

What type of PR is this:

  • BugFix
  • Feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactor
  • UT
  • Doc
  • Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

  • Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
  • No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

  • Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
  • Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
  • Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
  • Feature removed
  • Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

  • I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
  • This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
    • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
  • This is a backport pr

Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:

  • I have checked the version labels which the pr will be auto-backported to the target branch
    • 3.3
    • 3.2
    • 3.1
    • 3.0
    • 2.5

Signed-off-by: luohaha <[email protected]>
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 2, 2024

[FE Incremental Coverage Report]

pass : 0 / 0 (0%)

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 2, 2024

[BE Incremental Coverage Report]

pass : 20 / 20 (100.00%)

file detail

path covered_line new_line coverage not_covered_line_detail
🔵 be/src/storage/persistent_index.cpp 7 7 100.00% []
🔵 be/src/storage/lake/lake_primary_index.cpp 3 3 100.00% []
🔵 be/src/storage/primary_index.cpp 10 10 100.00% []


if (tablet->get_enable_persistent_index() && (fix_size <= 128)) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

is this a new function change to open the pk index limitation, not related to the bug fix?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is a historical problem, no need for now.

@@ -103,13 +102,13 @@ Status LakePrimaryIndex::_do_lake_load(TabletManager* tablet_mgr, const TabletMe
RETURN_IF_ERROR(StorageEngine::instance()
->get_persistent_index_store(metadata->id())
->create_dir_if_path_not_exists(path));
_persistent_index = std::make_unique<LakeLocalPersistentIndex>(path);
_persistent_index = std::make_shared<LakeLocalPersistentIndex>(path);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

is there a necessity to perform the load under lock? since there is already a lock defined and used for pk index.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@luohaha luohaha Aug 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It will be call when first time initial, no concurrency issue at this phase.

@wyb wyb merged commit 1c8df3a into StarRocks:main Aug 6, 2024
60 checks passed
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 6, 2024

@Mergifyio backport branch-3.3

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the 3.3 label Aug 6, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 6, 2024

@Mergifyio backport branch-3.2

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the 3.2 label Aug 6, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 6, 2024

@Mergifyio backport branch-3.1

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the 3.1 label Aug 6, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

backport branch-3.3

✅ Backports have been created

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

backport branch-3.2

✅ Backports have been created

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

backport branch-3.1

✅ Backports have been created

mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2024
mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2024
…tion (#49341)

Signed-off-by: luohaha <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 1c8df3a)

# Conflicts:
#	be/src/storage/lake/lake_primary_index.cpp
#	be/src/storage/primary_index.cpp
#	be/test/storage/lake/local_pk_index_manager_test.cpp
mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2024
…tion (#49341)

Signed-off-by: luohaha <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 1c8df3a)

# Conflicts:
#	be/src/storage/lake/lake_primary_index.cpp
#	be/src/storage/persistent_index.h
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants