Summary:
The previous API comments for LockWAL didn't provide much about why you might want to use it, and didn't really meet what one would infer its contract was. Also, LockWAL was not in db_stress / crash test. In this change:
* Implement a counting semantics for LockWAL()+UnlockWAL(), so that they can safely be used concurrently across threads or recursively within a thread. This should make the API much less bug-prone and easier to use.
* Make sure no UnlockWAL() is needed after non-OK LockWAL() (to match RocksDB conventions)
* Make UnlockWAL() reliably return non-OK when there's no matching LockWAL() (for debug-ability)
* Clarify API comments on LockWAL(), UnlockWAL(), FlushWAL(), and SyncWAL(). Their exact meanings are not obvious, and I don't think it's appropriate to talk about implementation mutexes in the API comments, but about what operations might block each other.
* Add LockWAL()/UnlockWAL() to db_stress and crash test, mostly to check for assertion failures, but also checks that latest seqno doesn't change while WAL is locked. This is simpler to add when LockWAL() is allowed in multiple threads.
* Remove unnecessary use of sync points in test DBWALTest::LockWal. There was a bug during development of above changes that caused this test to fail sporadically, with and without this sync point change.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11143
Test Plan: unit tests added / updated, added to stress/crash test
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42848627
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: 6d976c51791941a31fd8fbf28b0f82e888d9f4b4
Peter Dillinger
94e3beec77