[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17348?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17860225#comment-17860225
 ] 

Ilan Ginzburg commented on SOLR-17348:
--------------------------------------

Note that changing threads between ZooKeeper watches and SolrCloud code breaks 
some ZooKeeper assumptions (or does not allow SolrCloud code to build on them).
Zookeeper specifies that a change to a watched state will not be visible 
directly by ZooKeeper API calls before a the watch on that state has been 
called. If that watch call completes (from ZooKeeper’s perspective) while the 
corresponding SolrCloud executor thread has not, then ZooKeeper API calls can 
observe the new state before their watch has triggered.

This participates for example in making election code not very happy with 
ZooKeeper session expiration. We’ve seen races where election (shard leader 
election) ZK nodes were set before SolrCloud code got a session expiration, but 
they were set using the new reconnected session! The on reconnection code that 
sets again these election nodes was then finding a node already exists. If you 
look at election code in SolrCloud, there are a few places testing for states 
that should not happen, but do…

Not saying we shouldn’t reduce some constants though.

> Mitigate extreme parallelism of zkCallback executor
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-17348
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17348
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Michael Gibney
>            Priority: Minor
>
> zkCallback executor is [currently an unbounded thread pool of core size 
> 0|https://github.com/apache/solr/blob/709a1ee27df23b419d09fe8f67c3276409131a4a/solr/solrj-zookeeper/src/java/org/apache/solr/common/cloud/SolrZkClient.java#L91-L92],
>  using a SynchronousQueue. Thus, a flood of zkCallback events (as might be 
> triggered by a cluster restart, e.g.) can result in spinning up a very large 
> number of threads. In practice we have encountered as many as 35k threads 
> created in some such cases, even after the impact of this situation was 
> reduced by the fix for SOLR-11535.
> Inspired by [~cpoerschke]'s recent [closer look at thread pool 
> behavior|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13350?focusedCommentId=17853178#comment-17853178],
>  I wondered if we might be able to employ a bounded queue to alleviate some 
> of the pressure from bursty zk callbacks.
> The new config might look something like: {{corePoolSize=1024, 
> maximumPoolSize=Integer.MAX_VALUE, allowCoreThreadTimeout=true, workQueue=new 
> LinkedBlockingQueue<>(1024)}}. This would allow the pool to grow up to (and 
> shrink from) corePoolSize in the same manner it currently does, but once 
> exceeding corePoolSize (e.g. during a cluster restart or other callback flood 
> event), tasks would be queued (up to some fixed limit). If the queue limit is 
> exceeded, new threads would still be created, but we would have avoided the 
> current “always create a thread” behavior, and by so doing hopefully reduce 
> task execution time and improve overall throughput.
> From the ThreadPoolExecutor javadocs:
> {quote}Direct handoffs. A good default choice for a work queue is a 
> SynchronousQueue that hands off tasks to threads without otherwise holding 
> them. Here, an attempt to queue a task will fail if no threads are 
> immediately available to run it, so a new thread will be constructed. This 
> policy avoids lockups when handling sets of requests that might have internal 
> dependencies. Direct handoffs generally require unbounded maximumPoolSizes to 
> avoid rejection of new submitted tasks. This in turn admits the possibility 
> of unbounded thread growth when commands continue to arrive on average faster 
> than they can be processed.{quote}
> So afaict SynchronousQueue mainly makes sense if there exists the possibility 
> of deadlock due to dependencies among tasks, and I think this should ideally 
> _not_ be the case with zk callbacks (though in practice I'm not sure this is 
> the case).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org

Reply via email to