[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-1065?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16007109#comment-16007109
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-1065:
--------------------------------------------
Github user eolivelli commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/152
Yes recently we removed a similar line due to findbugs warning
> OrderedSafeExecutor should only have 1 thread per bucket
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-1065
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-1065
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Matteo Merli
> Assignee: Matteo Merli
> Fix For: 4.5.0
>
>
> In a earlier commit, "BOOKKEEPER-874: Explict LAC from Writer to Bookie",
> there was this change in the OrderedSafeExecutor implementation:
> {noformat}
> for (int i = 0; i < numThreads; i++) {
> - queues[i] = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>();
> - threads[i] = new ThreadPoolExecutor(1, 1,
> - 0L, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, queues[i],
> + threads[i] = new ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor(1,
> new ThreadFactoryBuilder()
> .setNameFormat(name + "-orderedsafeexecutor-" + i +
> "-%d")
> .setThreadFactory(threadFactory)
> .build());
> + threads[i].setMaximumPoolSize(1);
> {noformat}
> Then, as part of "BOOKKEEPER-1013: Fix findbugs errors on latest master", the
> max pool size line has been removed.
> {noformat}
> @@ -183,7 +183,6 @@ public class OrderedSafeExecutor {
> .setNameFormat(name + "-orderedsafeexecutor-" + i +
> "-%d")
> .setThreadFactory(threadFactory)
> .build());
> - threads[i].setMaximumPoolSize(1);
> // Save thread ids
> final int idx = i;
> {noformat}
> Without that the thread pool would create multiple threads for the same
> bucket, breaking the ordering guarantee of the executor.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
