Summary:
Use @omegaga's awesome feature to avoid use of callbacks for ensuring
SyncPoints happen in a particular thread.
Depends on D60375.
Test Plan:
$ ./auto_roll_logger_test
Reviewers: omegaga, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba, omegaga, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D60471
Summary:
There was a race condition in the test where the rolling thread
acquired the mutex before the flush thread pinned the logger. Rather than add
more complicated synchronization to fix it, I followed Siying's suggestion to
use SyncPoint in the test code.
Comments in the LoadDependency() invocation explain the reason for each of the
sync points.
Test Plan:
Ran test 1000 times for tsan/asan. Will wait for all sandcastle tests
to finish before committing since this is a tricky test.
Reviewers: IslamAbdelRahman, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D54615
Summary:
Previously I just slept until the flush_thread was "probably" ready
since proper synchronization in test cases seemed like overkill. But then tsan
complained about it, so I did the synchronization (mostly) properly now.
Test Plan:
$ COMPILE_WITH_TSAN=1 make -j32 auto_roll_logger_test
$ ./auto_roll_logger_test
Reviewers: anthony, IslamAbdelRahman, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D54399
Summary:
For GetLogFileSize() and Flush(), they previously did not follow the
synchronization pattern for accessing logger_. This meant ResetLogger() could
cause logger_ destruction while the unsynchronized functions were accessing it,
causing a segfault.
Also made the mutex instance variable mutable so we can preserve
GetLogFileSize()'s const-ness.
Test Plan:
new test case, it's quite ugly because both threads need to access
one of the functions with SyncPoints (PosixLogger::Flush()), and also special
handling is needed to prevent the mutex and sync points from conflicting.
Reviewers: kradhakrishnan, IslamAbdelRahman, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D54237
