[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14750?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17180191#comment-17180191
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on SOLR-14750:
--------------------------------------------------------
Commit 0f88cce8418f8a65b1643951a43fff66722f9547 in lucene-solr's branch
refs/heads/branch_8x from Noble Paul
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=0f88cce ]
SOLR-14750: TestBulkSchemaConcurrent fails often(#1760)
> Harden TestBulkSchemaConcurrent
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-14750
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14750
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: Tests
> Reporter: Erick Erickson
> Assignee: Noble Paul
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: SOLR-14750.patch
>
> Time Spent: 1h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> This test has been failing quite often lately. I poked around a bit and see
> what I _think_ is evidence of a race condition in CoreContainer.reload where
> a reload on the same core is happening from two places in close succession.
> I'll attach a preliminary patch soon.
> Without this patch I had 25 failures out of 1,000 runs, with it 0.
> I consider this patch a WIP, putting up for comment. Well, it has nocommits
> so... But In particular, I have to review some changes I made about which
> name we're using for PendingCoreOps. I also want to back out my changes and
> beast it again with some more logging to see if I can nail down that multiple
> reloads are happening before declaring victory.
> What this does is put the name of the core we're reloading in pendingCoreOps
> earlier in the reload process. Then the second call to reload will wait until
> the first is completed. I also restructured it a bit because I don't like if
> clauses that go on forever and a small else clause way down the code. I
> inverted the test and bailed out of the method rather than fall off the end
> after the else clause.
> One thing I don't like about this is two reloads in such rapid succession
> seems wasteful. Even so, I can imagine that one reload gets through far
> enough to load the schema, then a schema update changes the schema _then_
> calls reload. So I don't think just returning if there's a reload happening
> on that core already is valid.
> More to come.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
