能学到什么
- 什么是死锁
- 死锁有什么危害
- 典型的死锁案例剖析
- 如何避免死锁
一、什么是死锁
- 1.必须满足的条件
1
2
|
1. 必须有两个或者两个以上的事务
2. 不同事务之间都持有对方需要的锁资源。 A事务需要B的资源,B事务需要A的资源,这就是典型的AB-BA死锁
|
- 2.死锁相关的参数
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
|
* innodb
_print_all_deadlocks
1. 如果这个参数打开,那么死锁相关的信息都会打印输出到error log
* innodb
_lock_wait_timeout
1. 当MySQL获取row lock的时候,如果wait了innodb
_lock_wait_timeout=N的时间,会报以下错误
ERROR 1205 (HY000): Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction
* innodb
_deadlock_detect
1. innodb
_deadlock_detect = off 可以关闭掉死锁检测,那么就发生死锁的时候,用锁超时来处理。
2. innodb
_deadlock_detect = on (默认选项)开启死锁检测,数据库自动回滚
* innodb
_status_lock_output = on
1. 可以看到更加详细的锁信息
|
二、死锁有什么危害
- 死锁,即表明有多个事务之间需要互相争夺资源而互相等待。
- 如果没有死锁检测,那么就会互相卡死,一直hang死
- 如果有死锁检测机制,那么数据库会自动根据代价来评估出哪些事务可以被回滚掉,用来打破这个僵局
- 所以说:死锁并没有啥坏处,反而可以保护数据库和应用
- 那么出现死锁,而且非常频繁,我们应该调整业务逻辑,让其避免产生死锁方为上策
三、典型的死锁案例剖析
3.1 死锁案例一
典型的 AB-BA 死锁
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
|
session
1:
select *
from tb_b
where id_2 =
1
for update (A)
session
2:
select *
from tb_a
where
id =
2
for update (B)
session
1:
select *
from tb_a
where
id =
2
for update (B)
session
2:
select *
from tb_b
where id_2 =
1
for update (A)
ERROR
1213 (
40001): Deadlock found when trying
to
get lock;
try restarting
transaction
1213的死锁错误,mysql会自动回滚
哪个回滚代价最小,回滚哪个(根据undo判断)
------------------------
LATEST DETECTED DEADLOCK
------------------------
2017-
06-
22
16:
39:
50
0x7f547dd02700
*** (
1) TRANSACTION:
TRANSACTION
133601982, ACTIVE
48 sec starting index
read
mysql tables
in use
1, locked
1
LOCK WAIT
4 lock struct(s), heap size
1136,
2 row lock(s)
MySQL thread
id
11900, OS thread handle
140000866637568, query
id
25108 localhost dba statistics
select *
from tb_a
where
id =
2
for update
-----session1 持有tb_a中记录为2的锁
*** (
1) WAITING FOR THIS LOCK TO BE GRANTED:
RECORD LOCKS
space
id
303 page no
3 n bits
72 index PRIMARY
of table `lc_5`.`tb_a` trx
id
133601982 lock_mode X locks rec
but
not gap waiting
Record lock, heap no
3 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields
3; compact format; info bits
0
0: len
4; hex
80000002; asc ;;
--session 1 需要tb_a中记录为2的锁( session1 -> session2 )
1: len
6; hex
000007f69ab2; asc ;;
2: len
7; hex dc000027100110; asc ' ;;
*** (
2) TRANSACTION:
TRANSACTION
133601983, ACTIVE
28 sec starting index
read, thread declared inside InnoDB
5000
mysql tables
in use
1, locked
1
4 lock struct(s), heap size
1136,
2 row lock(s)
MySQL thread
id
11901, OS thread handle
140000864773888, query
id
25109 localhost dba statistics
select *
from tb_b
where id_2 =
1
for update
*** (
2) HOLDS THE LOCK(S):
RECORD LOCKS
space
id
303 page no
3 n bits
72 index PRIMARY
of table `lc_5`.`tb_a` trx
id
133601983 lock_mode X locks rec
but
not gap
Record lock, heap no
3 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields
3; compact format; info bits
0
0: len
4; hex
80000002; asc ;;
--session 2 持有tb_a中记录等于2的锁
1: len
6; hex
000007f69ab2; asc ;;
2: len
7; hex dc000027100110; asc ' ;;
*** (
2) WAITING FOR THIS LOCK TO BE GRANTED:
RECORD LOCKS
space
id
304 page no
3 n bits
72 index PRIMARY
of table `lc_5`.`tb_b` trx
id
133601983 lock_mode X locks rec
but
not gap waiting
Record lock, heap no
2 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields
3; compact format; info bits
0
0: len
4; hex
80000001; asc ;;
--session 2 需要tb_b中记录为1的锁 ( session2 -> session1 )
1: len
6; hex
000007f69ab8; asc ;;
2: len
7; hex e0000027120110; asc ' ;;
最终的结果:
死锁路径:[session1 -> session2 , session2 -> session1]
ABBA死锁产生
|
3.2 死锁案例二
同一个事务中,S-lock 升级为 X-lock 不能直接继承
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
|
* session 1:
mysql> CREATE TABLE t (i INT) ENGINE = InnoDB;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (1.07 sec)
mysql> INSERT INTO t (i) VALUES(1);
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.09 sec)
mysql> START TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec)
mysql> SELECT * FROM t WHERE i = 1 LOCK IN SHARE MODE; --获取S-lock
+------+
| i |
+------+
| 1 |
+------+
* session 2:
mysql> START TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec)
mysql> DELETE FROM t WHERE i = 1; --想要获取X-lock,但是被session1的S-lock 卡住,目前处于waiting lock阶段
* session 1:
mysql> DELETE FROM t WHERE i = 1; --想要获取X-lock,session1本身拥有S-lock,但是由于session 2 获取X-lock再前,所以session1不能够从S-lock 提升到 X-lock,需要等待session2 释放才可以获取,所以造成死锁
ERROR 1213 (40001): Deadlock found when trying to get lock;
try restarting transaction
死锁路径:
session2 -> session1 , session1 -> session2
|
3.3 死锁案例三
唯一键死锁 (delete + insert)
关键点在于:S-lock
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
|
dba:lc_3> show create table uk;
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Table | Create Table |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| uk | CREATE TABLE
`uk` (
`a` int(11) NOT NULL,
UNIQUE KEY `uniq_a` (`a`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
dba:lc_3> select * from uk;
+---+
| a |
+---+
| 1 |
+---+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
session 1:
dba:lc
_3> begin;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec)
dba:lc
_3> delete from uk where a=1;
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)
session 2:
dba:(none)> use lc
_3;
Database changed
dba:lc_3> insert into uk values(1); --wait lock(想要加S-lock,却被sesson1的X-lock卡住)
sesson 3:
dba:(none)> use lc
_3;
Database changed
dba:lc_3> insert into uk values(1); --wait lock(想要加S-lock,却被sesson1的X-lock卡住)
session 1:
commit; --session2和session3 都获得了S-lock,然后都想要去给记录1 加上X-lock,却互相被对方的S-lock卡住,死锁产生
再来看session 2 和 session 3 的结果:
session2:
Query OK, 1 row affected (7.36 sec)
session3:
ERROR 1213 (40001): Deadlock found when trying to get lock; try restarting transaction
总结: 试想想,如果session 1 不是commit,而是rollback会是怎么样呢? 大家去测测就会发现,结果肯定是唯一键冲突啊
|
3.4 死锁案例四
主键和二级索引的死锁
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
|
* primary key
1 2 3 4
--primary key col1
10 30 20 40
--idx_key2 col2
100 200 300 400
--idx_key3 col3
* idx_key2
select * from t where col2 > 10: 锁二级索引顺序为:20 =》30 , 对应锁主键的顺序为:3 =》2
10
20
30
40
1
3
2
4
* idx_key3
select *
from t
where col3 >
100:锁二级索引顺序为:
200 =》
300 , 对应锁主键的顺序为:
2 =》
3
100
200
300
400
1
2
3
4
死锁路径:
由于二级索引引起的主键加锁顺序:
3 =》
2
由于二级索引引起的主键加锁顺序:
2 =》
3
这个要求并发,且刚好
session
1 加锁
3的时候
session
2 要加锁
2.
session
1 加锁
2的时候
session
3 要加锁
3.
这样就产生了 AB-BA 死锁
|
3.5 死锁案例五
purge + unique key 引发的死锁
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
|
A表的记录: id = 1 10 40 100 200 500 800 900
session 1 :
delete from a where id = 10; ???
session 2 :
delete from a where id = 800; ???
session 1 :
insert into a select 800; ???
session 2 :
insert into a select 10; ???
* 如果大家去跑这两钟SQL语句的并发测试,是可以导致死锁的。
* 如何验证是由于
purge导致的问题呢?这个本想用mysqld-debug模式去关闭purge线程,但是很遗憾我没能模拟出来。。。
|
3.6 死锁案例六
REPLACE INTO问题
1
2
3
4
5
6
|
* 这个问题模拟起来非常简单,原理非常复杂,这里不过多解释
* 详情请看姜老师的文章,据说看懂了年薪都100w了: http://www.innomysql.com/
26186-
2/
* 解决方案:
* 用insert into
... on duplicate key update 代替 replace into
* 此方案亲测有效
|
四、如何避免死锁
- 产生死锁的原因
1
|
1. 事务之间互相占用资源
|
- 方法和总结
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
|
1. 降低隔离级别,修改 RR -> RC , 如果这个调整了,可以避免掉
60%的死锁场景和奇怪的锁等待
2. 调整业务逻辑和SQL,让其都按照顺序执行操作
3. 减少unique索引,大部分死锁的场景都是由于unique索引导致
4. 尽量不用replace into,用insert into
... on duplicate key update 代替
|
http://keithlan.github.io/2017/08/17/innodb_locks_deadlock/