mysql 播入和更新死锁_MySQL 死锁套路：一次诡异的批量插入死锁问题分析

线上最近出现了批量insert的死锁，百思不得姐。死锁记录如下

2018-10-26T11:04:41.759589Z 8530809 [Note] InnoDB:

*** (1) TRANSACTION:

TRANSACTION 1202026765, ACTIVE 0 sec inserting

mysql tables in use 1, locked 1

LOCK WAIT 3 lock struct(s), heap size 1136, 3 row lock(s), undo log entries 1

MySQL thread id 8532863, OS thread handle 139858337453824, query id 16231472122 10.111.10.143 seewo update

INSERT IGNORE INTO xx_performance_type_label_relation(label_id, performance_type_id, type, create_time)

VALUES

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '06b96ee0bab84d71bb17bf9645d3aa54', 1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '27d82e2331b241e1a9c9c0a74ec21099', -1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '3100b5978fb24f56b327d25732a7d7a7', 1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '435a1e19ce6e4e5bbb84240b3b34cf03', 1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '447fe27199ca40e289ef2834469d9a78', 1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '87a52c4d00844b5bb9eb75e8fe34202a', 1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', 'c6a0e26983bd4fae837d5ee2f4efeef8', 1, now())

2018-10-26T11:04:41.759635Z 8530809 [Note] InnoDB: *** (1) WAITING FOR THIS LOCK TO BE GRANTED:

RECORD LOCKS space id 505 page no 9912 n bits 288 index uk_performance_type_id_label_id of table `masaike`.`xx_performance_type_label_relation` trx id 1202026765 lock_mode X locks gap before rec insert intention waiting

2018-10-26T11:04:41.759674Z 8530809 [Note] InnoDB: *** (2) TRANSACTION:

TRANSACTION 1202026764, ACTIVE 0 sec inserting

mysql tables in use 1, locked 1

3 lock struct(s), heap size 1136, 3 row lock(s), undo log entries 1

MySQL thread id 8530809, OS thread handle 139858469242624, query id 16231472119 10.111.10.153 seewo update

INSERT IGNORE INTO xx_performance_type_label_relation(label_id, performance_type_id, type, create_time)

VALUES

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '06b96ee0bab84d71bb17bf9645d3aa54', 1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '27d82e2331b241e1a9c9c0a74ec21099', -1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '3100b5978fb24f56b327d25732a7d7a7', 1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '435a1e19ce6e4e5bbb84240b3b34cf03', 1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '447fe27199ca40e289ef2834469d9a78', 1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', '87a52c4d00844b5bb9eb75e8fe34202a', 1, now())

,

('bb0394e670644168a998a93a3ed521bc', 'c6a0e26983bd4fae837d5ee2f4efeef8', 1, now())

2018-10-26T11:04:41.759713Z 8530809 [Note] InnoDB: *** (2) HOLDS THE LOCK(S):

RECORD LOCKS space id 505 page no 9912 n bits 288 index uk_performance_type_id_label_id of table `masaike`.`xx_performance_type_label_relation` trx id 1202026764 lock mode S

2018-10-26T11:04:41.759753Z 8530809 [Note] InnoDB: *** (2) WAITING FOR THIS LOCK TO BE GRANTED:

RECORD LOCKS space id 505 page no 9912 n bits 288 index uk_performance_type_id_label_id of table `masaike`.`xx_performance_type_label_relation` trx id 1202026764 lock_mode X locks gap before rec insert intention waiting

2018-10-26T11:04:41.759784Z 8530809 [Note] InnoDB: *** WE ROLL BACK TRANSACTION (2)

复制代码

第一反应是批量insert，insert的顺序不一样导致的死锁。但是这个在这里是不成立的。原因有两点

出现问题的批量插入SQL中顺序是一模一样的，在顺序一样的情况下，只会进行插入等待(implicit lock转explicit X锁)下面有实验

如果是因为批量插入顺序不一致带来的死锁日志，打印的结果不是等待插入意向锁(insert intention waiting)，下面有实验

现在采用一个简化的表，做实验

CREATE TABLE `t1` (

`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,

`a` varchar(5) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',

`b` varchar(5) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',

PRIMARY KEY (`id`),

UNIQUE KEY `uk_name` (`a`,`b`)

) ENGINE=InnoDB;

复制代码

实验 01

在记录不存在的情况下，两个同样顺序的批量insert同时执行，第二个会进行锁等待状态

首先truncate t1;

t1

t2

begin;

begin;

insert ignore into t1(a, b)values("1", "1");

成功

insert ignore into t1(a, b)values("1", "1");

锁等待状态

可以看到目前锁的状态

mysql> select * from information_schema.innodb_locks;

+-------------+-------------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+----------+-----------+

| lock_id | lock_trx_id | lock_mode | lock_type | lock_table | lock_index | lock_space | lock_page | lock_rec | lock_data |

+-------------+-------------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+----------+-----------+

| 31AE:54:4:2 | 31AE | S | RECORD | `d1`.`t1` | `uk_name` | 54 | 4 | 2 | '1', '1' |

| 31AD:54:4:2 | 31AD | X | RECORD | `d1`.`t1` | `uk_name` | 54 | 4 | 2 | '1', '1' |

+-------------+-------------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+----------+-----------+

复制代码

在我们执行事务t1的insert时，没有在任何锁的断点处出现，这跟MySQL插入的原理有关系

insert 加的是隐式锁。什么是隐式锁？隐式锁的意思就是没有锁

在t1插入记录时，是不加锁的。这个时候事务t1还未提交的情况下，事务t2尝试插入的时候，发现有这条记录，t2尝试获取S锁，会判定记录上的事务id是否活跃，如果活跃的话，说明事务未结束，会帮t1把它的隐式锁提升为显式锁(X锁)

源码如下

t2获取S锁的结果:DB_LOCK_WAIT

实验02

批量插入顺序不一致的导致的死锁日志不是等待插入意向锁

t1

t2

begin

insert into t1(a, b)values("1", "1");

成功

insert into t1(a, b)values("2", "2");

成功

insert into t1(a, b)values("2", "2");

t1尝试获取S锁，把t2的隐式锁提升为显式X锁，进入DB_LOCK_WAIT

insert into t1(a, b)values("1", "1");

t2尝试获取S锁，把t1的隐式锁提升为显式X锁，产生死锁

------------------------

LATEST DETECTED DEADLOCK

------------------------

181101 9:48:36

*** (1) TRANSACTION:

TRANSACTION 3309, ACTIVE 215 sec inserting

mysql tables in use 1, locked 1

LOCK WAIT 3 lock struct(s), heap size 376, 2 row lock(s), undo log entries 2

MySQL thread id 2, OS thread handle 0x70000a845000, query id 58 localhost root update

insert into t1(a, b)values("2", "2")

*** (1) WAITING FOR THIS LOCK TO BE GRANTED:

RECORD LOCKS space id 55 page no 4 n bits 72 index `uk_name` of table `d1`.`t1` trx id 3309 lock mode S waiting

Record lock, heap no 3 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields 3; compact format; info bits 0

0: len 1; hex 32; asc 2;;

1: len 1; hex 32; asc 2;;

2: len 4; hex 80000002; asc ;;

*** (2) TRANSACTION:

TRANSACTION 330A, ACTIVE 163 sec inserting

mysql tables in use 1, locked 1

3 lock struct(s), heap size 376, 2 row lock(s), undo log entries 2

MySQL thread id 3, OS thread handle 0x70000a888000, query id 59 localhost root update

insert into t1(a, b)values("1", "1")

*** (2) HOLDS THE LOCK(S):

RECORD LOCKS space id 55 page no 4 n bits 72 index `uk_name` of table `d1`.`t1` trx id 330A 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 1; hex 32; asc 2;;

1: len 1; hex 32; asc 2;;

2: len 4; hex 80000002; asc ;;

*** (2) WAITING FOR THIS LOCK TO BE GRANTED:

RECORD LOCKS space id 55 page no 4 n bits 72 index `uk_name` of table `d1`.`t1` trx id 330A lock mode S waiting

Record lock, heap no 2 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields 3; compact format; info bits 0

0: len 1; hex 31; asc 1;;

1: len 1; hex 31; asc 1;;

2: len 4; hex 80000001; asc ;;

*** WE ROLL BACK TRANSACTION (2)

复制代码

到目前为止，已经陷入了僵局，完全没法复现死锁的情况。看了代码，发现在insert之前有一个delete，但是delete与insert不在一个事务里面，也就是delete提交以后，才进行批量insert，真正出问题的地方在批量insert的地方。一开始就排除了delete对后面的影响，难道不在一个事务，也会有影响？

写了一个代码去模拟，有很大概率会复现

fun test(){

dao.delete() // 对应delete from

// sleep for 10ms

dao.insert() // 对应insert ignore

}

复制代码

对应的 SQL 如下，注意是两个事务

begin;

delete from t1 where a = '25'

commit;

begin;

INSERT ignore INTO `t1` (`a`, `b`) VALUES('25','1')

commit;

复制代码

这个代码在两个线程同时调用的时候，非常容易死锁。

后来翻遍了网上相关的死锁案例，有一个关于purge删除的过程可能跟这个有关系。

如果标记为删除，说明事务已经提交，还没来得及 purge，这时后面的事务加S锁等待；

在源码中打印一些日志。

1.在storage/innobase/row/row0ins.c的row_ins_set_shared_rec_lock增加日志，可以看到对唯一索引增加S锁的过程

if (dict_index_is_clust(index)) {

err = lock_clust_rec_read_check_and_lock(

0, block, rec, index, offsets, LOCK_S, type, thr);

} else {

err = lock_sec_rec_read_check_and_lock(

0, block, rec, index, offsets, LOCK_S, type, thr);

// 增加如下日志

fprintf(stderr, "row_ins_set_shared_rec_lock %s %lu %d\n" , index->name, type, err);

}

复制代码

2.在lock_rec_enqueue_waiting增加日志，可以看到锁等待的情况

static

enum db_err

lock_rec_enqueue_waiting(

{

fprintf(stderr, "lock_rec_enqueue_waiting::::: %s %lu\n" , index->name, type_mode);

}

复制代码

日志大概如下

row_ins_set_shared_rec_lock uk_name 0 9 (t1获取S锁成功)

row_ins_set_shared_rec_lock uk_name 0 9 (t2获取S锁成功)

lock_rec_enqueue_waiting::::: uk_name 2563(t1 X锁进如锁等待)

lock_rec_enqueue_waiting::::: uk_name 2563(t2 X锁进如锁等待)

复制代码

其中2563=2048+512+3=LOCK_INSERT_INTENTION+LOCK_GAP+LOCK_X

这个过程跟非常经典的三个事务同时insert，一个回滚，剩下的两个事务一个成功，一个死锁，其实是一模一样的原理。

实验03

三个 insert ignore，一个回滚造成的死锁

insert语句都是insert ignore into t1(a, b)values("1", "1");以下省略

t1

t2

t3

备注

begin

begin

begin

insert

成功

insert

把t1的隐式锁提升为X锁，t2进入进入S锁等待

insert

t3进入进入S锁等待

rollback;

t1回滚以后，释放X锁，t2和t3同时拿到了S锁

ok

deadlock

t2和t3都想拿插入意向锁X锁，造成死锁条件

死锁日志，跟我们案例中的一模一样

------------------------

LATEST DETECTED DEADLOCK

------------------------

181101 23:22:59

*** (1) TRANSACTION:

TRANSACTION 5032, ACTIVE 11 sec inserting

mysql tables in use 1, locked 1

LOCK WAIT 4 lock struct(s), heap size 1248, 2 row lock(s), undo log entries 1

MySQL thread id 5, OS thread handle 0x70000d736000, query id 125 localhost root update

insert ignore into t1(a, b)values("1", "1")

*** (1) WAITING FOR THIS LOCK TO BE GRANTED:

RECORD LOCKS space id 56 page no 4 n bits 584 index `uk_name` of table `d1`.`t1` trx id 5032 lock_mode X locks gap before rec insert intention waiting

Record lock, heap no 139 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields 3; compact format; info bits 0

0: len 3; hex 313031; asc 101;;

1: len 3; hex 313031; asc 101;;

2: len 4; hex 800007b1; asc ;;

*** (2) TRANSACTION:

TRANSACTION 5033, ACTIVE 6 sec inserting

mysql tables in use 1, locked 1

4 lock struct(s), heap size 1248, 2 row lock(s), undo log entries 1

MySQL thread id 6, OS thread handle 0x70000d779000, query id 126 localhost root update

insert ignore into t1(a, b)values("1", "1")

*** (2) HOLDS THE LOCK(S):

RECORD LOCKS space id 56 page no 4 n bits 584 index `uk_name` of table `d1`.`t1` trx id 5033 lock mode S locks gap before rec

Record lock, heap no 139 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields 3; compact format; info bits 0

0: len 3; hex 313031; asc 101;;

1: len 3; hex 313031; asc 101;;

2: len 4; hex 800007b1; asc ;;

*** (2) WAITING FOR THIS LOCK TO BE GRANTED:

RECORD LOCKS space id 56 page no 4 n bits 584 index `uk_name` of table `d1`.`t1` trx id 5033 lock_mode X locks gap before rec insert intention waiting

Record lock, heap no 139 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields 3; compact format; info bits 0

0: len 3; hex 313031; asc 101;;

1: len 3; hex 313031; asc 101;;

2: len 4; hex 800007b1; asc ;;

*** WE ROLL BACK TRANSACTION (2)

复制代码

目前来看，得到的结论是：

一个已提交但是未purge掉的记录会造成后续插入获取S共享锁，两个事务同时获取S锁，然后尝试获取插入意向锁，造成死锁

网上大神梳理的insert流程

首先对插入的间隙加插入意向锁(Insert Intension Locks)

如果该间隙已被加上了 GAP 锁或 Next-Key 锁，则加锁失败进入等待；

如果没有，则加锁成功，表示可以插入；

然后判断插入记录是否有唯一键，如果有，则进行唯一性约束检查

如果不存在相同键值，则完成插入

如果存在相同键值，则判断该键值是否加锁

如果没有锁， 判断该记录是否被标记为删除

如果标记为删除，说明事务已经提交，还没来得及 purge，这时加 S 锁等待；

如果没有标记删除，则报 1062 duplicate key 错误；

如果有锁，说明该记录正在处理(新增、删除或更新)，且事务还未提交，加 S 锁等待；

插入记录并对记录加 X 记录锁；

上面是我 debug 源码得到的一些结论，如果我的理解有误的话，记得留言告诉我

以下为参考文档