Fix orphan MemcachedConnection after client being shutdown#188
Merged
Fix orphan MemcachedConnection after client being shutdown#188
Conversation
Sunjeet
approved these changes
Mar 5, 2026
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
We found scenarios when the EVCacheClientPoolManager was shutdown, but somehow an orphan connection thread was not being shutdown correctly. The Sequence is like:
- Discovers instances from the provider
- Creates brand new EVCacheClient instances (line 1081), each with a new EVCacheConnection thread
- Calls setupNewClientsByServerGroup() (line 1093) which does map.put(sg, newClients) (line 877)
- map.put() returns null as currentClients (because step 3 already removed the old ones)
- Since currentClients == null, line 889 returns early — no shutdown of the new clients happens
The fix is to guard refresh() on _shutdown. One thing to note is that we could have gone through the _shutdown check right before the shutdown is signaled, which would still result in the same issue. To avoid this, we need to mark shutdown as synchronized the same as refresh(). This way shutdown() and refresh() are mutually exclusive. Either: