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

[BugFix] Make cpu_weight always store positive default value #51005

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 18, 2024

Conversation

ZiheLiu
Copy link
Contributor

@ZiheLiu ZiheLiu commented Sep 12, 2024

Why I'm doing:

Recently, a change was made allowing the resource parameter cpu_weight, which previously had to be positive, to now be non-positive.

After downgrading from current version, since the old version of BE expects cpu_weight to be positive (e.g., using it as a divisor), this could lead to crashes or unexpected behavior.

What I'm doing:

To address this, ensure that when a resource group is persisted, the stored value is always a positive integer.

Additionally, when using the value, the getNormalizedCpuWeight() method will ensure that cpu_weight returns 0 when exclusive_cpu_cores is positive.

Fixes #issue

What type of PR is this:

  • BugFix
  • Feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactor
  • UT
  • Doc
  • Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

  • Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
  • No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

  • Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
  • Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
  • Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
  • Feature removed
  • Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

  • I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
  • This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
    • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
  • This is a backport pr

Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:

  • I have checked the version labels which the pr will be auto-backported to the target branch
    • 3.3
    • 3.2
    • 3.1
    • 3.0
    • 2.5

Signed-off-by: zihe.liu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: zihe.liu <[email protected]>
@ZiheLiu ZiheLiu requested a review from a team as a code owner September 13, 2024 01:52
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Sep 13, 2024

Copy link

[Java-Extensions Incremental Coverage Report]

pass : 0 / 0 (0%)

Copy link

[FE Incremental Coverage Report]

pass : 13 / 13 (100.00%)

file detail

path covered_line new_line coverage not_covered_line_detail
🔵 com/starrocks/sql/ast/AlterResourceGroupStmt.java 1 1 100.00% []
🔵 com/starrocks/catalog/ResourceGroup.java 7 7 100.00% []
🔵 com/starrocks/sql/ast/CreateResourceGroupStmt.java 1 1 100.00% []
🔵 com/starrocks/catalog/ResourceGroupMgr.java 4 4 100.00% []

Copy link

[BE Incremental Coverage Report]

pass : 0 / 0 (0%)

@satanson satanson merged commit c80d77a into StarRocks:main Sep 18, 2024
50 checks passed
Copy link

@Mergifyio backport branch-3.3

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the 3.3 label Sep 18, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Sep 18, 2024

backport branch-3.3

✅ Backports have been created

  • Backport to branch branch-3.3 not needed, change already in branch branch-3.3

renzhimin7 pushed a commit to renzhimin7/starrocks that referenced this pull request Nov 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants