Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 24, 2025

Conversation

mxsm
Copy link
Owner

@mxsm mxsm commented Jan 24, 2025

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)

Fixes #2392

Brief Description

How Did You Test This Change?

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor
    • Enhanced thread safety for queue management in the PopBufferMergeService
    • Improved concurrency control by using mutex-protected queue data structures
    • Updated methods to ensure safe concurrent access to queue elements

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 24, 2025

Walkthrough

The pull request focuses on enhancing thread safety in the PopBufferMergeService within the RocketMQ broker. The primary modification involves transitioning the queue management from a simple VecDeque<T> to an Arc<parking_lot::Mutex<VecDeque<T>>>. This change ensures thread-safe concurrent access to the queue, preventing potential data races and improving the service's concurrency model by introducing mutex-based synchronization for queue operations.

Changes

File Change Summary
rocketmq-broker/src/processor/processor_service/pop_buffer_merge_service.rs - Updated QueueWithTime struct to use Arc<parking_lot::Mutex<VecDeque<T>>>
- Replaced get_queue() with get() method
- Removed get_queue_mut() method
- Modified methods to use mutex locking for thread-safe operations

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
[#2392] Implement QueueWithTime thread sync safety

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

feature🚀, approved, auto merge, AI review first, rocketmq-broker crate

Suggested reviewers

  • TeslaRustor
  • SpaceXCN
  • rocketmq-rust-bot

Poem

🐰 In the realm of threads, a queue so bright,
Mutex embraced with synchronous might,
Race conditions flee in pure delight,
RocketMQ's service now thread-safe and tight,
Concurrency dances with rabbit's insight! 🚀


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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@rocketmq-rust-bot rocketmq-rust-bot self-requested a review January 24, 2025 07:56
@rocketmq-rust-robot rocketmq-rust-robot added feature🚀 Suggest an idea for this project. rocketmq-broker crate labels Jan 24, 2025
@rocketmq-rust-robot rocketmq-rust-robot added this to the v0.4.0 milestone Jan 24, 2025
@rocketmq-rust-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

🔊@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💥.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 24, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 57.14286% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 28.62%. Comparing base (acdec58) to head (856bff8).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...ssor/processor_service/pop_buffer_merge_service.rs 57.14% 6 Missing ⚠️
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.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a 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 the VecDeque in a parking_lot::Mutex is solid for mutual exclusion. If reads significantly outnumber writes, a RwLock may improve concurrency.


738-738: Return value naming.
Method get returns the Arc<parking_lot::Mutex<...>>. For clarity, consider naming it more explicitly, e.g., queue_arc() or queue_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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between acdec58 and 856bff8.

📒 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, empty VecDeque 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.

Copy link
Collaborator

@rocketmq-rust-bot rocketmq-rust-bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@rocketmq-rust-bot rocketmq-rust-bot merged commit e170b89 into main Jan 24, 2025
27 checks passed
@rocketmq-rust-bot rocketmq-rust-bot added approved PR has approved and removed ready to review waiting-review waiting review this PR labels Jan 24, 2025
@mxsm mxsm deleted the feature-2392 branch January 25, 2025 00:36
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
AI review first Ai review pr first approved PR has approved auto merge feature🚀 Suggest an idea for this project. rocketmq-broker crate
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Feature🚀] Implement QueueWithTime thread sync safety
3 participants