Skip to content
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

Ignore case when checking for Direct Memory OOM #12657

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 18, 2024

Conversation

ege-st
Copy link
Contributor

@ege-st ege-st commented Mar 15, 2024

We have seen cases where the fault message for a Direct Memory OOM uses different casing for the phrase Direct buffer. Which meant the Direct Memory OOM Handler in the Pinot Netty code was not triggered and, so, the OOM was not cleaned up, leaving Pinot in a failed state.

This PR changes the if check to ignore case when checking the fault message.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Mar 15, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 61.85%. Comparing base (59551e4) to head (cecc4a8).
Report is 131 commits behind head on master.

Files Patch % Lines
.../apache/pinot/core/transport/DirectOOMHandler.java 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #12657      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     61.75%   61.85%   +0.10%     
+ Complexity      207      198       -9     
============================================
  Files          2436     2452      +16     
  Lines        133233   133841     +608     
  Branches      20636    20767     +131     
============================================
+ Hits          82274    82793     +519     
- Misses        44911    44930      +19     
- Partials       6048     6118      +70     
Flag Coverage Δ
custom-integration1 <0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration <0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration1 ?
integration2 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
java-11 61.82% <0.00%> (+0.11%) ⬆️
java-21 34.94% <0.00%> (-26.69%) ⬇️
skip-bytebuffers-false 61.81% <0.00%> (+0.07%) ⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-true 34.94% <0.00%> (+7.21%) ⬆️
temurin 61.85% <0.00%> (+0.10%) ⬆️
unittests 61.85% <0.00%> (+0.10%) ⬆️
unittests1 46.92% <0.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
unittests2 27.74% <0.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@ege-st
Copy link
Contributor Author

ege-st commented Mar 15, 2024

The original PR did not have any unit or integration tests. Would be nice to take this chance to add a test or two, if anyone can give me a pointer on where that should go.

Copy link
Contributor

@soumitra-st soumitra-st left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

:shipit:

@Jackie-Jiang Jackie-Jiang merged commit f4ea580 into apache:master Mar 18, 2024
19 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants