-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 119
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
[ISSUE #2392]💫Implement QueueWithTime thread sync safety🚀 #2393
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request focuses on enhancing thread safety in the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
🔊@mxsm 🚀Thanks for your contribution🎉! 💡CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first🔥! Note 🚨The code review suggestions from CodeRabbit are to be used as a reference only, and the PR submitter can decide whether to make changes based on their own judgment. Ultimately, the project management personnel will conduct the final code review💥. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2393 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 28.63% 28.62% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 507 507
Lines 73313 73314 +1
==========================================
- Hits 20990 20989 -1
- Misses 52323 52325 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
rocketmq-broker/src/processor/processor_service/pop_buffer_merge_service.rs (4)
452-453
: Efficiently querying queue size.
Using the lock to query the queue’s length is safe, but be aware that frequent size checks under contention can add overhead. If performance becomes a bottleneck, consider collecting size metrics less frequently.
718-718
: Consider a read-write access pattern.
Wrapping theVecDeque
in aparking_lot::Mutex
is solid for mutual exclusion. If reads significantly outnumber writes, aRwLock
may improve concurrency.
738-738
: Return value naming.
Methodget
returns theArc<parking_lot::Mutex<...>>
. For clarity, consider naming it more explicitly, e.g.,queue_arc()
orqueue_mutex()
.
971-974
: Expand concurrency testing.
The test verifies push operations, which is good. Consider adding a concurrency test to ensure the mutex usage remains correct under simultaneous reads/writes.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
rocketmq-broker/src/processor/processor_service/pop_buffer_merge_service.rs
(7 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (9)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest, nightly)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest, stable)
- GitHub Check: build (macos-latest, nightly)
- GitHub Check: build (macos-latest, stable)
- GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest, nightly)
- GitHub Check: test
- GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest, stable)
- GitHub Check: build
- GitHub Check: auto-approve
🔇 Additional comments (5)
rocketmq-broker/src/processor/processor_service/pop_buffer_merge_service.rs (5)
210-210
: Confirm the lock usage.
Locking the queue before accessing its contents is correct and helps prevent data races. Ensure that methods relying on this lock release it timely to avoid potential contention under heavy load.
552-552
: Lazy initialization is valid.
Creating or retrieving the queue in DashMap on demand looks good. Just confirm that concurrent threads won’t repeatedly insert the same key, which could cause unnecessary overhead.
556-557
: Appending to the locked queue.
Locking the queue and pushing an item is straightforward and correct. Ensure pop/deduplicate logic (if any) also locks consistently to maintain a thread-safe queue flow.
725-725
: Initialization logic looks fine.
Creating a new, emptyVecDeque
upon instantiation is correct. No immediate issues detected.
957-958
: Basic queue empty check test.
Locking within the test is straightforward, confirming that the queue is empty upon creation. This is a good sanity check for initialization.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)
Fixes #2392
Brief Description
How Did You Test This Change?
Summary by CodeRabbit