gcworker: fix gc miss locks when region merged during scanning & resolving locks #22252
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
…lving locks Signed-off-by: lysu <sulifx@gmail.com>
youjiali1995
reviewed
Jan 7, 2021
Closed
Signed-off-by: lysu <sulifx@gmail.com>
youjiali1995
reviewed
Jan 7, 2021
store/tikv/gcworker/gc_worker.go
Outdated
| if w.testingKnobs.resolveLocks != nil { | ||
| ok, err1 = w.testingKnobs.resolveLocks(loc.Region) | ||
| ok, err1 = w.testingKnobs.resolveLocks(locks, loc.Region) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| ok, err1 = w.testingKnobs.resolveLocks(locks, loc.Region) | |
| ok, err1 = w.testingKnobs.resolveLocks(locks, locForResolve.Region) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like the log at line 1104 became not very meaningful 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps it's ok to simply change the loc to locForResolve too in that log
Comment on lines
920
to
926
| s.gcWorker.testingKnobs.scanLocks = func(key []byte, regionID uint64) []*tikv.Lock { | ||
| if regionID == s.initRegion.regionID { | ||
| return []*tikv.Lock{ | ||
| {Key: []byte("a")}, | ||
| {Key: []byte("b")}, | ||
| {Key: []byte("o")}, | ||
| {Key: []byte("p")}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can compare the key parameter with these 4 locks, so that there should be 4 locks at line 942.
Signed-off-by: lysu <sulifx@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: lysu <sulifx@gmail.com>
MyonKeminta
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2021
youjiali1995
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2021
ti-srebot
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2021
|
/merge |
ti-srebot
added
the
status/can-merge
|
/run-all-tests |
ti-srebot
pushed a commit
to ti-srebot/tidb
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2021
Signed-off-by: ti-srebot <ti-srebot@pingcap.com>
|
cherry pick to release-3.0 in PR #22266 |
ti-srebot
pushed a commit
to ti-srebot/tidb
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2021
Signed-off-by: ti-srebot <ti-srebot@pingcap.com>
|
cherry pick to release-4.0 in PR #22267 |
ti-srebot
pushed a commit
to ti-srebot/tidb
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2021
Signed-off-by: ti-srebot <ti-srebot@pingcap.com>
|
cherry pick to release-5.0-rc in PR #22268 |
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.
Signed-off-by: lysu sulifx@gmail.com
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: close #22245
Problem Summary:
just as
TestResolveLockRangeMeetRegionEnlargeCausedByRegionMergeWhat is changed and how it works?
What's Changed, How it Works:
we need re-scan region's lock when found merged region's EndKey 's larger than origional region's EndKey
Related changes
Check List
Tests
Side effects
Release note
This change is