Support dynamically setting multiple failpoints #38
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
|
cc @ptabor as well |
|
Related to #38 |
It isn't safe to lock each failpoint. The server might panic before sending response back to client. For example, when a user set a terms for failpoint A, but the server might be panicking due to failpoint B. So it isn't safe to lock each single failpoint once a time. Instead, we should lock the global mutex. When each failpoint is triggered, it just needs to acquire the read lock. But when a client set terms for failpoints, they need to acquire the write lock, and release the lock after the server(runtime) sends response back to the client. Signed-off-by: Benjamin Wang <[email protected]>
When the server(runtime) processes a http request, it acquires the
global write lock. This prevents all failpoints from being triggered.
It ensures the server(runtime) doesn't panic due to any failpoints
during processing the HTTP request.
It may be inefficient, but correctness is more important than
efficiency. Usually users will not enable too many failpoints at a
time, so it (the efficiency) isn't a problem.
Example:
endpoint: /failpoints
body: failpoint1=return("hello");failpoint2=sleep(10)
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Wang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Wang <[email protected]>
ahrtr
force-pushed
the
dynamical_multiple_failpoints_20221122
branch
from
b475efa
to
1337baf
Compare
serathius
reviewed
Nov 25, 2022
serathius
reviewed
Nov 25, 2022
serathius
reviewed
Nov 25, 2022
serathius
reviewed
Nov 25, 2022
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Wang <[email protected]>
|
Thanks @serathius . Resolved all your comments. PTAL. |
serathius
reviewed
Nov 25, 2022
Comment on lines
+54
to
+57
| if len(fps) == 0 { | ||
| return fpMap, nil | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note: Don't think this is needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we remove this, When users pass an empty string, then it will return error "bad failpoint xxx".
If we don't check the fps, then users are supposed to always pass a non-empty string. It seems like not a big deal, so let's keep it as it's for now.
serathius
reviewed
Nov 25, 2022
serathius
reviewed
Nov 25, 2022
serathius
approved these changes
Nov 25, 2022
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Wang <[email protected]>
ahrtr
force-pushed
the
dynamical_multiple_failpoints_20221122
branch
from
1998403
to
d16d16d
Compare
serathius
approved these changes
Nov 25, 2022
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.
Users can dynamically setting multiple failpoints using endpoint
/failpoints, see example below,Please review this PR commit by commit.
@spzala @serathius @ramil600