You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@flink.apache.org by "Yingjie Cao (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2023/04/06 08:41:00 UTC

[jira] (FLINK-31610) Refactoring of LocalBufferPool

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-31610 ]


    Yingjie Cao deleted comment on FLINK-31610:
    -------------------------------------

was (Author: kevin.cyj):
Sorry for being so late.

> 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)