Simplify multiple mutex usage around CacheFor #944
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
aruiz14
commented
Nov 28, 2025
| gi.cancel() | ||
|
|
||
| // Prevent other CacheFor calls for that GVK | ||
| gi.stopMutex.Lock() |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This also implicitly waited for all Cache users to finish, while it's now explicitly by using a WaitGroup
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Issue: rancher/rancher#52873
The main goal of this PR is to minimize the time that
CacheFactory.informersMutexis locked whenStop(gvk)is called.For this, it leverages resetting and reusing
guardedInformers, using its mutex for synchronization.Also, the use of read locks for
DoneWithCacheunnecessarily prevented us from using a single mutex. Instead, I've replaced "resource locking" with reference counting, by usingsync.WaitGroup.