Question
Sergey Kudinov · Jun 23, 2016

Looking for 'dead' locks

#Caché

Can anybody share a code looking for 'dead' locks?

It's not trivial to find such locks manually when there are many records in lock table.

0
0 451
Discussion (5)1
Log in or sign up to continue
Dmitry Maslennikov · Jun 23, 2016

As I'm not sure what you mean by 'dead' locks, I'll just show simple code for looking all locks in current namespace

    set lockName=""
    for {
        set lockName=$order(^$LOCK(lockName))
        quit:lockName=""
        set mode=^$LOCK(lockName,"MODE")
        set owner=^$LOCK(lockName,"OWNER")
        write !,mode,?4,owner,?12,lockName
    }
0 0
Sergey Kudinov · Jun 23, 2016

Thank you Dmitry for response.

I need to detect only all mutual dependence of locks and locks attempts of different processes.

Dead lock sample:
1 process: Lock +^Glb(1)
2 process: Lock +^Glb(2)
1 process: Lock +^Glb(2)
2 process: Lock +^Glb(1)

1 process waiting for unlocking of ^Glb(2). But it's impossible because 2 processes is waiting unlocking of 1 process node.

^$LOCK contain information only about successful locks. Do detect 'dead' locks we need information about lock attempts too (%SYS.LockQuery:WebList query result that SMP displays).
SMP 'View Lock' mode can display thousands of records. But I need to filter only  mutual dependence of locks.

0 0
Jon Willeke · Jun 23, 2016

You can use the information from %SYS.LockQuery to graph the locks with their owners and waiters. Then do a depth-first traversal of each node, looking for a cycle.

Here's a sketch of building the graph:

s rs=##class(%ResultSet).%New("%SYS.LockQuery:Detail")
s status=rs.Execute()
k graph
f i=1:1 q:'rs.%Next()  d
. s ref="L"_i,graph(ref,rs.Owner)=1
. f j=1:1:$l(rs.WaiterPID," ") d
. . s pid=$p(rs.WaiterPID," ",j) s:pid]"" graph(pid,ref)=1

The graph looks something like this:

graph(3330,"L5")=1
graph(4380,"L4")=1
graph("L1",3309)=1
graph("L2",3326)=1
graph("L3",3327)=1
graph("L4",3330)=1
graph("L5",4380)=1

I've generated IDs for the locks to avoid a SUBSCRIPT error for long references. You'll want to keep a list of the original lock names.

Here's a (minimally tested) traversal method that returns an error if it finds a cycle:

ClassMethod dfs(byref graph, node as %String, byref visited) as %Status {
    s status=$$$OK
    i $d(node) d
    . i $d(visited(node)) d  q
    . . s status=$$$ERROR($$$GeneralError,"found a cycle at node "_node)
    . s visited(node)=1
    . s next=""
    . f  s next=$o(graph(node,next)) q:""=next  d  q:$$$ISERR(status)
    . . s status=..dfs(.graph,next,.visited)
    e  d
    . s root=""
    . f  s root=$o(graph(root)) q:""=root  d  q:$$$ISERR(status)
    . . k visited
    . . s status=..dfs(.graph,root,.visited)
    q status
}

If you try it on the previous graph, it will return an error like the following:

USER>s status=##class(deadlock).dfs(.graph) 

USER>d $system.OBJ.DisplayError(status)    

ERROR #5001: found a cycle at node L5
1 0
Sergey Kudinov · Jun 24, 2016

Many thanks John for idea. It's more easier to use WaiterPID values.

One correction to your code:

s rs=##class(%ResultSet).%New("%SYS.LockQuery:Detail")
s status=rs.Execute()
k graph
f i=1:1 q:'rs.%Next()  d
. s ref="L"_i,graph(ref,rs.Owner)=1
. f j=1:1:$l(rs.WaiterPID,",") d
. . s pid=$p(rs.WaiterPID,",",j) s:pid]"" graph(pid,ref)=1

WaiterPID values are separated by "," not by " "

0 0