Open Stack

On 12/02/2013 09:51 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> On 12/02/13 at 09:08am, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 12/02/2013 09:02 AM, Victor Sergeyev wrote:
>>> Hi folks!
>>>
>>> At the moment I and Roman Podoliaka are working on splitting of
>>> openstack.common.db code into a separate library. And it would be nice
>>> to drop dependency on eventlet before oslo.db is released.
>>>
>>> Currently, there is only one place in oslo.db where we use eventlet -
>>> wrapping of DB API method calls to be executed by tpool threads. It
>>> wraps DB API calls to be executed by tpool threads. This is only needed
>>> when eventlet is used together with DB-API driver implemented as a
>>> Python C extension (eventlet can't monkey patch C code, so we end up
>>> with DB API calls blocking all green threads when using Python-MySQLdb).
>>> eventlet has a workaround known as 'tpool' which is basically a pool of
>>> real OS threads that can play nicely with eventlet event loop. tpool
>>> feature is experimental and known to have stability problems. There is a
>>> doubt that anyone is using it in production at all. Nova API (and
>>> probably other API services) has an option to prefork the process on
>>> start, so that they don't need to use tpool when using eventlet together
>>> Python-MySQLdb.
>>>
>>> We'd really like to drop tpool support from oslo.db, because as a
>>> library we should not be bound to any particular concurrency model. If a
>>> target project is using eventlet, we believe, it is its problem how to
>>> make it play nicely with Python-MySQLdb lib, but not the problem of
>>> oslo.db. Though, we could put tpool wrapper into another helper module
>>> within oslo-incubator.
>>>
>>> But we would really-really like not to have any eventlet related code in
>>> oslo.db.
>>>
>>> Are you using CONF.database.use_tpool in production? Does the approach
>>> with a separate tpool wrapper class seem reasonable? Or we can just drop
>>> tpool support at all, if no one is using it?
>>
>> Please don't remove it completely.  Putting it in oslo-incubator for now
>> seems fine, though.
> 
> +1.  We are using it in production, though only in certain places
> because it does have stability issues that we'd like to track down and fix.

Related bug report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1171601

-- 
Russell Bryant