[jira] [Updated] (FLINK-24125) Rethink relationship between DeclarativeSlotPool and *Bridge

["Yun Gao (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-24125?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Yun Gao updated FLINK-24125:
----------------------------
    Fix Version/s: 1.16.0

> Rethink relationship between DeclarativeSlotPool and *Bridge
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLINK-24125
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-24125
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Technical Debt
>          Components: Runtime / Coordination
>    Affects Versions: 1.14.0, 1.15.0
>            Reporter: Chesnay Schepler
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 1.15.0, 1.16.0
>
>
> The {{DeclarativeSlotPoolBridge}} bridges the old non-declarative slot allocation protocol of the {{DefaultScheduler}} with the {{DeclarativeSlotPool}}. It increases requirements when a slot is requested, and reduces the requirements when the slot is freed.
> To support this the {{DeclarativeSlotPool}} API was designed such that the bridge is provided with the resource profile of freed slots, such that it can subsequently reduce the requirements.
> The main benefit of this is that the bridge does not have to do any resource book-keeping; the downside is that this pushes {{DefaultScheduler}} requirements into the declarative resource management stack.
> We should rethink whether it wouldn't be worth to extend the book-keeping in the bridge such that the pool does no longer have to deal with this.
> One thing to investigate is whether this is easily possible, specifically whether a simple book-keeping (let's say, a Map<SlotRequestId, ResourceProfile>) would be sufficient or whether there are edge-cases this couldn't support.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)