server: remove ineffective `updateLock`. #5263

klihub · 2021-08-30T07:29:32Z

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

Remove effectively unused Server.updateLock. It is only
ever RLocked()/RUnlocked(). A leftover that should have
been removed in b56da85fc.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

None

Special notes for your reviewer:

None

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

Remove effectively unused Server.updateLock. It is only ever RLocked()/RUnlocked(). A leftover that should have been removed in b56da85. Signed-off-by: Krisztian Litkey <[email protected]>

openshift-ci · 2021-08-30T07:29:40Z

Hi @klihub. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a cri-o member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

saschagrunert

/ok-to-test

saschagrunert · 2021-08-30T07:38:52Z

server/container_create.go

-	s.updateLock.RLock()
-	defer s.updateLock.RUnlock()


Can we be sure that everything on top of this stack is properly locked?

TBH, I don't know. I was proposing this commit simply because of this observation (unexported RWMutex only ever being read-locked):

klitkey1-mobl cri-o $ git grep updateLock HEAD^ HEAD^:server/container_create.go: s.updateLock.RLock() HEAD^:server/container_create.go: defer s.updateLock.RUnlock() HEAD^:server/sandbox_run_linux.go: s.updateLock.RLock() HEAD^:server/sandbox_run_linux.go: defer s.updateLock.RUnlock() HEAD^:server/server.go: updateLock sync.RWMutex

Unless it is already broken, removing that lock should not break anything.

Yeah I agree. There is always the risk that we reveal some missing lower level locks which would cause a regression. I think we should be fine removing those locks. @haircommander WDYT?

yeah I agree if we're only ever read locking it it doesn't seem like we need it.

codecov · 2021-08-30T07:40:51Z

Codecov Report

Merging #5263 (b8aedc7) into master (f85d0be) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head b8aedc7 differs from pull request most recent head 88f5e15. Consider uploading reports for the commit 88f5e15 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5263      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   43.76%   43.74%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         118      118              
  Lines       11721    11717       -4     
==========================================
- Hits         5130     5126       -4     
  Misses       6104     6104              
  Partials      487      487

haircommander · 2021-09-06T16:43:18Z

/approve
/retest

haircommander · 2021-09-07T18:56:06Z

/retest

saschagrunert

LGTM

openshift-ci · 2021-09-08T07:24:17Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: haircommander, klihub, saschagrunert

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [haircommander,saschagrunert]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

haircommander · 2021-09-08T14:58:36Z

/lgtm

thanks @klihub for the catch and the PR!

openshift-bot · 2021-09-08T15:42:16Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-08T15:55:17Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-08T16:21:15Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-08T17:26:17Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-08T17:52:15Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-08T20:50:15Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-08T21:38:16Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-08T23:02:15Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-08T23:38:15Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T00:26:14Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T02:38:23Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T02:50:16Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T03:14:14Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T04:02:14Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T04:39:15Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T06:04:14Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T06:40:15Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

saschagrunert · 2021-09-09T06:40:36Z

/release-note-none

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T06:52:17Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T07:16:16Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T07:40:15Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T08:17:17Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-ci · 2021-09-09T09:55:56Z

@klihub: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Rerun command
ci/openshift-jenkins/integration_crun_cgroupv2	`88f5e15`	link	`/test integration_cgroupv2`
ci/openshift-jenkins/e2e_crun_cgroupv2	`88f5e15`	link	`/test e2e_cgroupv2`

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

saschagrunert · 2021-09-09T09:58:43Z

/test e2e-agnostic

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T10:55:54Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2021-09-09T11:07:56Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

server: remove ineffective updateLock.

88f5e15

Remove effectively unused Server.updateLock. It is only ever RLocked()/RUnlocked(). A leftover that should have been removed in b56da85. Signed-off-by: Krisztian Litkey <[email protected]>

klihub requested review from mrunalp and runcom as code owners August 30, 2021 07:29

openshift-ci bot requested review from giuseppe and saschagrunert August 30, 2021 07:29

openshift-ci bot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Aug 30, 2021

saschagrunert reviewed Aug 30, 2021

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Aug 30, 2021

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 6, 2021

saschagrunert approved these changes Sep 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot assigned haircommander Sep 8, 2021

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 8, 2021

saschagrunert added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. labels Sep 9, 2021

openshift-merge-robot merged commit 7bad536 into cri-o:master Sep 9, 2021

klihub deleted the fixes/remove-ineffective-updateLock branch November 8, 2021 16:25

klihub mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2022

REQUEST: New reviewer status for @klihub #5640

Closed

4 tasks

server: remove ineffective updateLock. #5263

server: remove ineffective updateLock. #5263

Uh oh!

Conversation

klihub commented Aug 30, 2021

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 30, 2021

Uh oh!

saschagrunert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

saschagrunert Aug 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

klihub Aug 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

saschagrunert Aug 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

haircommander Sep 6, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Aug 30, 2021

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

haircommander commented Sep 6, 2021

Uh oh!

haircommander commented Sep 7, 2021

Uh oh!

saschagrunert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 8, 2021

Uh oh!

haircommander commented Sep 8, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 8, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 8, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 8, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 8, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 8, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 8, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 8, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 8, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 8, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 9, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 9, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 9, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 9, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 9, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 9, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 9, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 9, 2021

Uh oh!

saschagrunert commented Sep 9, 2021

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Sep 9, 2021

Uh oh!

server: remove ineffective `updateLock`. #5263

server: remove ineffective `updateLock`. #5263

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 9, 2021 •

edited

Loading