[jira] [Commented] (FLINK-31610) Refactoring of LocalBufferPool

["Anton Kalashnikov (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-31610?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17704604#comment-17704604 ] 

Anton Kalashnikov commented on FLINK-31610:
-------------------------------------------

[~Weijie Guo], [~fanrui], What do you think about the idea in the description? Do you have any other ideas for simplification the code?

CC [~pnowojski]

> Refactoring of LocalBufferPool
> ------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLINK-31610
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-31610
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Runtime / Network
>    Affects Versions: 1.17.0
>            Reporter: Anton Kalashnikov
>            Priority: Major
>
> FLINK-31293 bug highlighted the issue with the internal mutual consistency of different fields in LocalBufferPool. ex.:
> -  `numberOfRequestedOverdraftMemorySegments`
> -  `numberOfRequestedMemorySegments`
> -  `availableMemorySegment`
> -  `currentPoolSize`
> Most of the problem was fixed already(I hope) but it is a good idea to reorganize the code in such a way that all invariants between all fields inside will be clearly determined and difficult to break.
> As one example I can propose getting rid of numberOfRequestedOverdraftMemorySegments and using existing numberOfRequestedMemorySegments instead. That means:
> - the pool will be available when `!availableMemorySegments.isEmpty() && unavailableSubpartitionsCount == 0`
> - we don't request a new `ordinary` buffer when `numberOfRequestedMemorySegments >=  currentPoolSize` but we request the overdraft buffer instead
> - `setNumBuffers` should work automatically without any changes
> I think we can come up with a couple of such improvements to simplify the code.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)