[bitbake-devel] [PATCH] prserv: don't wait until exit to sync

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 09:47 -0600, Ben Shelton wrote:
> On 11/02, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > On 27 October 2014 17:27, Ben Shelton <ben.shelton at ni.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In the commit 'prserv: Ensure data is committed', the PR server moved to
> > > only committing transactions to the database when the PR server is
> > > stopped.  This improves performance, but it means that if the machine
> > > running the PR server loses power unexpectedly or if the PR server
> > > process gets SIGKILL, the uncommitted package revision data is lost.
> > >
> > > To fix this issue, sync the database periodically, once per 30 seconds
> > > by default, if it has been marked as dirty.  To be safe, continue to
> > > sync the database at exit regardless of its status.
> > >
> > 
> > This appears to be causing random problems for me where bitbake will
> > timeout attempting to access the PR database, my hunch is that it's
> > blocking on disk I/O.  Are there any tricks we can do with sqlite to reduce
> > the overhead of committing? (assuming that sqlite isn't causing a full
> > filesystem sync).
> > 
> > Ross
> 
> After running a few large nightly builds, we've seen some issues with
> this as well.  It looks like the issue is in the PR server itself, which
> logs this error:
> 
> "OperationalError: cannot start a transaction within a transaction"
> 
> However, I'm confused as to why this is happening, since the only place
> new transactions are being created is in the sync() function ("BEGIN
> EXCLUSIVE TRANSACTION"), and AFAIK that's only called by a single
> thread.  Any ideas?

Did the commit() fail and therefore there was already an transaction
open? It leads to another quesiton of why the commit would fail (timeout
maybe?).

> Would it make sense to revert the patch until we identify/fix the issue?

You have flagged a valid issue that I would like to get to the bottom of
so perhaps not quite yet.

I'm wondering if we can have some in memory copy of the table which we
flush to disk in a separate thread which wouldn't influence the PR
service request responses but its a horrible idea to workaround what
seems like a fundamental problem in sqlite :/.

Cheers,

Richard