From: Kevin Lewis Date: January 26 2009 11:46pm Subject: Re: Bug 40633 pushbuild failure: Falcon assertion "lockState == 0" failed in SyncObject.cpp List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/falcon/428 Message-Id: <497E4B66.4030301@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Olav and Vlad, It looks to me like cache:flushLock is used to synchronize between Cache::flush where syncWait is locked and Cache::ioThread where it is unlocked. Cache::ioThread should never be able to exit with syncWait still locked. But it looks like it can on line 960. if (!flushing) if (thread->shutdownInProgress) break; So maybe just as the last ioThread leaves and unlocks flushLock, a thread in cache::flush gets flushlock and locks syncWait one last time. We need a way for Cache::flush to determine, after it gets flushLock, if there are any ioThreads to signal. Should it check thread->shutdownInProgress? Also notice that flushlock is unlocked first. Should it be the other way around? I think so... storage\falcon\Cache.cpp(940): flushLock.unlock(); storage\falcon\Cache.cpp(941): syncWait.unlock(); Olav Sandstaa wrote: > Kevin, > > Both Wlad and I have seen that it is the Cache::syncWait sync object > that is causing this assert. And I think both of us think that a quick > and safe solution is to test if this sync object is locked in the Cache > destructor and if so, then just unlock it. Do you agree that that is an > OK fix for pushing to the replication branch to make them happy? To no > longer make Falcon code a one of the stoppers for them pushing to > mysql-6.0 tree...... If you think this is OK then I will make a patch - > and after review push it to the replication branch. > > Still, I think it will be good to understand why this situation happened > - and if this is a "bug" in the IO thread, then possibly fix it so that > the IO thread is able to do this unlocking of syncWait properly. I have > only briefly looked at the Cache::flush() and iothread code so I do not > fully understand it yet. > > Olav > >