[DNM] #3786
[DNM] #3786
Conversation
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
do-not-merge/needs-linked-issue
release-note
|
[FORMAT CHECKER NOTIFICATION] Notice: To remove the 📖 For more info, you can check the "Contribute Code" section in the development guide. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
the
size/XL
Summary of ChangesHello @lidezhu, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request implements a significant optimization in how resolved timestamp events are processed within the log puller. By introducing a mechanism to batch multiple resolved timestamp updates for a given subscription, the system can reduce the overhead associated with individual event processing and frequent updates to the range lock heap. This change aims to improve the overall performance and efficiency of resolved timestamp propagation, particularly in scenarios with high event throughput. Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
|
@lidezhu: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces batching for resolved timestamp events to improve performance. A new batchResolvedTsEvent is created to group multiple resolved timestamp updates, and the regionEventHandler is updated to process these batches. The regionRequestWorker is also modified to create these batches. The overall changes appear sound and the refactoring in region_event_handler enhances the code's structure. However, I've identified a critical race condition in the new UpdateLockedRangeStateHeapBatch function due to incorrect lock usage, and I've also suggested a refactoring to reduce code duplication in the OnDrop function.
| l.mu.RLock() | ||
| defer l.mu.RUnlock() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a potential race condition here. l.lockedRangeStateHeap.AddOrUpdate modifies the heap, which is not a thread-safe operation. It should be protected by a write lock (l.mu.Lock()) instead of a read lock (l.mu.RLock()). Other methods like tryLockRange and UnlockRange that modify the heap are correctly using a write lock. The same issue exists in the UpdateLockedRangeStateHeap function.
| l.mu.RLock() | |
| defer l.mu.RUnlock() | |
| l.mu.Lock() | |
| defer l.mu.Unlock() |
| if event.batchResolvedTs != nil { | ||
| workerID := uint64(0) | ||
| if event.worker != nil { | ||
| workerID = event.worker.workerID | ||
| } | ||
| log.Warn("drop batch resolved ts event", | ||
| zap.Uint64("subscriptionID", uint64(event.batchResolvedTs.subscriptionID)), | ||
| zap.Int("resolvedEntries", len(event.batchResolvedTs.entries)), | ||
| zap.Uint64("workerID", workerID)) | ||
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
| if event.state == nil { | ||
| log.Warn("drop region event without state", zap.Any("event", event)) | ||
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
| workerID := uint64(0) | ||
| if event.worker != nil { | ||
| workerID = event.worker.workerID | ||
| } | ||
| log.Warn("drop region event", | ||
| zap.Uint64("regionID", event.state.getRegionID()), | ||
| zap.Uint64("requestID", event.state.requestID), | ||
| zap.Uint64("workerID", event.worker.workerID), | ||
| zap.Uint64("workerID", workerID), | ||
| zap.Bool("hasEntries", event.entries != nil), | ||
| zap.Bool("stateIsStale", event.state.isStale())) | ||
| return nil |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The logic to get workerID is duplicated. It can be extracted to the top of the function to improve readability and avoid code duplication. Also, the workerID is not logged in the event.state == nil case, which might be useful for debugging.
workerID := uint64(0)
if event.worker != nil {
workerID = event.worker.workerID
}
if event.batchResolvedTs != nil {
log.Warn("drop batch resolved ts event",
zap.Uint64("subscriptionID", uint64(event.batchResolvedTs.subscriptionID)),
zap.Int("resolvedEntries", len(event.batchResolvedTs.entries)),
zap.Uint64("workerID", workerID))
return nil
}
if event.state == nil {
log.Warn("drop region event without state", zap.Any("event", event), zap.Uint64("workerID", workerID))
return nil
}
log.Warn("drop region event",
zap.Uint64("regionID", event.state.getRegionID()),
zap.Uint64("requestID", event.state.requestID),
zap.Uint64("workerID", workerID),
zap.Bool("hasEntries", event.entries != nil),
zap.Bool("stateIsStale", event.state.isStale()))
return nil
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: close #xxx
What is changed and how it works?
Check List
Tests
Questions
Will it cause performance regression or break compatibility?
Do you need to update user documentation, design documentation or monitoring documentation?
Release note