-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move TSC took-time policy to guard both heap and disk tier #17190
Open
peteralfonsi
wants to merge
9
commits into
opensearch-project:main
Choose a base branch
from
peteralfonsi:tsc-policy-change
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+563
−188
Open
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7d8c7e9
Move TSC took-time policy to guard both heap and disk tier
36c7ba2
changelog
0359de4
spotless apply
048119f
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into tsc-policy-change
294ebae
Addressed Sagar's comment
2b3b0f0
Add missing javadoc
d138d28
address round 2 of comments
a317b9f
Add removal notification to put()
8011bb5
Fix incorrect stats hit when cache entry rejected by policy
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Similar to remove listener logic in computeIfAbsent, should we also trigger a removal listener from here as well?
As otherwise there is no way to communicate to the caller that the put call actually got skipped in case policy returned false.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes good catch, I only noticed the removal listener issue later on and forgot to add it back into
put()
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, it isn't necessary, since the old indices stats API
onCached
listener only gets called onloader.load()
, and forput()
there's no loader involved.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should consider tiered cache in generic terms, as the framework is agnostic of its users. If someone is using TSC and calls put(), but the item isn't added to the on-heap cache, we should notify them via a removal listener?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think in a fully generic setup, we shouldn't call
onRemoval()
in eitherput()
orcomputeIfAbsent()
as nothing was ever actually removed from the cache. Adding the call incomputeIfAbsent()
is kind of a gross hack we do because we know the IRC's external stats tracking incorrectly assumesloader.load()
always results in a value entering the cache.I'm wondering if it might be better to keep this generic and not have either method call the removal listener? This would mean the old indices stats API can be incorrect, but we're planning on removing that in 3.0 anyway.
Or, we can put it in both and define "cache removal" to include "rejected by policy". If the IRC ever called put() directly it would make the old stats API incorrect, but it never actually does call put(), so it should be fine?