Synchronize store operations in server instead #3029
Merged
+86
−66
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Trying to synchronize inside the store is a mistake because it may lead to deadlocks. We need the server to control this aspect
vinistock
force-pushed
the
01-09-synchronize_store_operations_in_server_instead
branch
from
e46a81a to
135d551
Compare
vinistock
added
bugfix
Graphite App
andyw8
approved these changes
Jan 9, 2025
Merge activity
|
vinistock
deleted the
01-09-synchronize_store_operations_in_server_instead
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
Closes #3027
The deadlock bug was introduced in #2976. Essentially, if the editor opens a URI for a non-existing file, we try to acquire the same lock twice.
Once here to verify if the request requires a document to be parsed and the second time here when we read the file from disk and save it in the store.
Trying to acquire the same mutex lock twice raises the deadlock error.
Implementation
I stopped synchronizing anything inside basic store operations. It just increases the chance of mistakes like these. I moved the responsibility of synchronizing back to the server.
Automated Tests
To catch this regression, we need a client/server integration test because the first synchronization happens only by reading a request from the STDIN pipe. I added one to ensure we don't hit the same issue again.