Depends on D3487
https://linear.app/comm/issue/ENG-905/fix-the-threading-problem - the problem and approaches are described in the task
Details
Details
You need 3 terminals
1:
cd services yarn run-backup-service
2:
cd services yarn run-blob-service
3:
You can use https://github.com/karol-bisztyga/grpc-playground/tree/backup-async
./build.sh ./cmake/build/bin/client
then in the GUI use the n option (just type n and hit enter, this stands for creating a new backup).
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rCOMM Comm
- Lint
No Lint Coverage - Unit
No Test Coverage
Event Timeline
There are a very large number of changes, so older changes are hidden. Show Older Changes
| services/backup/docker-server/contents/server/src/Reactors/client/blob/ServiceBlobClient.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 30 | remove this | |
Comment Actions
Could you explain why do we need to use this synchronization?
Is there a way to avoid the synchronization?
What are the consequences of using synchronization for handleRequest method? Can we handle a couple of connections at the same time?
edit:
I just noticed that there's a lot of description in the issue. Going to read through that before requesting changes,
Comment Actions
Before analyzing if this code handles synchronization correctly, I'd like to check if it is really the best option.
In the task you described a possible solution:
store them as reactor's members - we could store the client reactor objects as members of CreateNewBackupReactor since we need 1 client reactor per 1 server reactor (because every backup server reactor needs to call the blob service through the client reactor just once). I tried to do it this way but encountered problems. The main problem is (I think) that the client reactor objects are being destroyed while gRPC still tries to perform some operations on them.
Is it possible to fix the main problem by postponing object deletion until the communication is done, e.g. by replacing delete this with setting a callback in which the object is deleted and giving that callback to the other reactor?
Overall, it's not obvious for me why do we need complicated synchronization here.
Comment Actions
Is it possible to fix the main problem by postponing object deletion until the communication is done, e.g. by replacing delete this with setting a callback in which the object is deleted and giving that callback to the other reactor?
The solution you proposed seems to be very hacky. First, delete this lies in the base reactor's code. Second, I don't understand what is "other reactor" here? Did you mean putReactor?
Overall, it's not obvious for me why do we need complicated synchronization here.
Not sure what is unclear here. We have a server reactor that creates a client reactor inside. We need to wait for the client reactor to complete all operations before we terminate the (parent) server reactor.
| services/backup/docker-server/contents/server/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 34 ↗ | (On Diff #11034) | rename |
Comment Actions
We've discussed this offline with @karol-bisztyga. It looks like the main issue is that we need to call one reactor from another, but in our current solution when the caller is done it deletes itself which results in callee being deleted before it can finish its work. We've considered a couple of other options not involving using mutexes, one of them is promising, but it needs to be verified. Even if we agree to change the approach, there are a lot of diffs in this stack so it will be a lot cheaper to do such change in a followup.
Requesting changes because of inline comments, but we will probably keep the overall approach for now.
| services/backup/docker-server/contents/server/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35–36 ↗ | (On Diff #11136) | Can you rename it so that's obvious what it's doing? E.g. blobDoneCV. |
| 91–96 ↗ | (On Diff #11136) | As discussed, we should try to verify if we can block in this method call |
| services/backup/docker-server/contents/server/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35–36 ↗ | (On Diff #11136) |
sure
I think we can. The only difference is that instead of using mutex + CV we just use a single latch, right? I think we could cover this in a follow-up, it will be probably easier/faster that way. |
| 91–96 ↗ | (On Diff #11136) | I tried to look at the source code + google a bit but I've not found anything... As I think about this, I cannot see why there could be something wrong with this. All grpc operations are done, so at this point, it's just a regular object hanging for a bit to commit the suicide. If your intuition still keeps telling you that it can be dangerous for some reason, we can create a task and follow up there trying to squeeze some information about this out of the web. |
Comment Actions
Accepting, but please create a task where we can discuss about the alternatives.
| services/backup/docker-server/contents/server/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 36 ↗ | (On Diff #11140) | We can skip CV in the mutex name |
| 93 ↗ | (On Diff #11140) | Could you remind me why we're scheduling sending empty string here? |
| 35–36 ↗ | (On Diff #11136) |
Yes
I don't think it will be hard to update in this diff, but adding it as a followup also doesn't hurt - so up to you. |
| 91–96 ↗ | (On Diff #11136) | I don't expect that we will find the answers easily. I think it would be a lot better to invest in checking if the other solution might work and only if that's not the case, we should continue the verification here. |
Comment Actions
| services/backup/docker-server/contents/server/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 36 ↗ | (On Diff #11140) | For me, it's more clear because this CV and mutex are tightly bonded so having a name that's a subset of another name makes sense. If you feel strongly, I can change but I'd leave it as is. |
| 93 ↗ | (On Diff #11140) | To let the client reactor know that there are no more chunks. We operate on the concurrent queue here, so we have to enqueue something that will indicate we're finished, otherwise, the queue read on the other side is going to hang forever. An alternative here is to have queue<unique_ptr<string>> instead of queue<string> so we can enqueue a nullptr. I don't personally mind but I can understand that an empty string may not be crystal clear (although it is also logical since we wouldn't have an empty chunk - that would be pointless). |
| 35–36 ↗ | (On Diff #11136) | |
Comment Actions
Ok, I'm landing this now, @palys-swm if you feel like something here is unfinished, please let me know.