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.

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

Jump to bottom

HPCC-32945 Add support for queue clients with priorities #19306

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

HPCC-32945 Add support for queue clients with priorities #19306

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

ghalliday
Copy link
Member

@ghalliday ghalliday commented Nov 19, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Type of change:

  • This change is a bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
  • This change is a new feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
  • This change improves the code (refactor or other change that does not change the functionality)
  • This change fixes warnings (the fix does not alter the functionality or the generated code)
  • This change is a breaking change (fix or feature that will cause existing behavior to change).
  • This change alters the query API (existing queries will have to be recompiled)

Checklist:

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
    • My code does not create any new warnings from compiler, build system, or lint.
  • The commit message is properly formatted and free of typos.
    • The commit message title makes sense in a changelog, by itself.
    • The commit is signed.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
    • I have updated the documentation accordingly, or...
    • I have created a JIRA ticket to update the documentation.
    • Any new interfaces or exported functions are appropriately commented.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTORS document.
  • The change has been fully tested:
    • I have added tests to cover my changes.
    • All new and existing tests passed.
    • I have checked that this change does not introduce memory leaks.
    • I have used Valgrind or similar tools to check for potential issues.
  • I have given due consideration to all of the following potential concerns:
    • Scalability
    • Performance
    • Security
    • Thread-safety
    • Cloud-compatibility
    • Premature optimization
    • Existing deployed queries will not be broken
    • This change fixes the problem, not just the symptom
    • The target branch of this pull request is appropriate for such a change.
  • There are no similar instances of the same problem that should be addressed
    • I have addressed them here
    • I have raised JIRA issues to address them separately
  • This is a user interface / front-end modification
    • I have tested my changes in multiple modern browsers
    • The component(s) render as expected

Smoketest:

  • Send notifications about my Pull Request position in Smoketest queue.
  • Test my draft Pull Request.

Testing:

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

Jira Issue: https://hpccsystems.atlassian.net//browse/HPCC-32945

Jirabot Action Result:
Assigning user: [email protected]
Workflow Transition To: Merge Pending
Updated PR

@ghalliday ghalliday marked this pull request as ready for review November 19, 2024 15:39
@ghalliday
Copy link
Member Author

There are 3 commits.
The first is a set of unit tests (covered by another PR).
The second is the implementation of the client priorities and extended test cases
The third is a fix for a pre-existing race condition on queue destruction.

@ghalliday
Copy link
Member Author

NOTE: I do have code to support a list of priorities per client, but see notes in the JIRA as to why I think that ultimately will not work (without major refactoring) and, as far as I can see, no component has more than one thread listening to a single job queue object.

@ghalliday
Copy link
Member Author

A separate question is could this be merged into 9.6.x or 9.8.x. I think the answer should be NO, but HPCC-33030 may depend on it. Maybe that could be implemented poorly (as thor currently does) and then improved once this is merged.

jakesmith
jakesmith approved these changes Dec 2, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jakesmith jakesmith left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ghalliday - 1 trivial comment. I was not able to spot any issues though. Looks good.

common/workunit/wujobq.cpp
bool dequeuestop;
bool cancelwaiting;
bool validateitemsessions;
std::atomic<bool> isProcessingDequeue = 0;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

trivial: = false

mckellyln
mckellyln reviewed Dec 4, 2024
View reviewed changes
common/workunit/wujobq.cpp
//E.g. there is one thread with a minimum priority of 0, and another with a minimum of 100, and an item of
//priority 50 is queued. If the minimum priority of 100 is woken twice nothing will be dequeued.
//Similar problems occur when the clientPriority is mixed.
if (isProcessingDequeue.exchange(true))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should you sleep a tiny amount and try again instead of throwing ?
What is the implication if we throw ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok, I see comment -
no component has more than one thread listening to a single job queue object.

mckellyln
mckellyln approved these changes Dec 4, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@mckellyln mckellyln left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this looks good, but its something I am not familiar with so I will approve but really need more time to go over it in more detail.
I did have one general question about dodequeue() throwing and what that means.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@mckellyln mckellyln mckellyln approved these changes

@jakesmith jakesmith jakesmith approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@ghalliday @jakesmith @mckellyln