> On Nov. 4, 2015, 11:25 a.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > Can we test that more thoroughly than just "make check"? e.g., if there's a > > unit test that tries to enter this logic with multiple threads at once, > > running that with gtest_repeat=1000 would be nice.
There are tons of methods in libprocess that call `process::initialize` as a side-effect, but at the same time, the libprocess test suite starts out with an essentially race-free init call (See: https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/master/3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/main.cpp#L52). So any `--gtest_repeat` or `--gtest_shuffle` won't actually test the init code. (The master and agent also call init once on startup.) I'm not sure how valuable it will be to, say, to spawn a bunch of threads that call `process::initialize`. Do you have any suggestions? > On Nov. 4, 2015, 11:25 a.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp, line 742 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/diff/1/?file=1115784#file1115784line742> > > > > I wonder if it would be an improvement to rename these variables to > > reflect what they are used for more clearly. > > > > For example: maybe call them "initialize_started" and > > "initialize_complete" (and change the second so that it goes from false -> > > true instead of true -> false). That sounds very reasonable. I'll rename (and see if anyone objects :). - Joseph ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/#review105115 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 4, 2015, 10:58 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 4, 2015, 10:58 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Joris Van Remoortere. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The initialization synchronization logic contains three conditions, which > check: > 1) Was `initialize` called and is it done? > 2) Was `initialize` called and is it not done? > 3) Are you the first to call `initialize`? > > Condition (3) uses `compare_exchange_strong` between `initialized` and > `false`. This returns `true` (and sets `initialized` to true) iff the caller > is the first to reach that expression. > > The second simultaneous caller of `initialize` will either satisify condition > (2) or (3) and then wait on `initializing`. For the second caller, (2) and > (3) are identical because `compare_exchange_strong` between `true` and > `false` will always return false, thereby putting the second caller into the > waiting loop. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp > a94712b9ac3b60fb047b3a5a4d84a56fa4d02313 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Joseph Wu > >
