[FLINK-12021] Deploy execution in topological sorted order #8060
Conversation
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
Collaborator
|
Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community Review Progress
Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process. DetailsThe Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commandsThe @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
|
zentol
approved these changes
Mar 27, 2019
| } | ||
| else { | ||
| int counter = 0; | ||
| for (CompletableFuture<? extends T> future : resultFutures) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't it common to only accept a List if the order of elements is relevant?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would not restrict the user on the type of collection he wants to use. The contract is that the result collection will have the same order as the input collection.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| final Iterator<CompletableFuture<LogicalSlot>> slotIterator = slotFutures.iterator(); | ||
| final SlotProvider slotProvider = new TestingSlotProvider(slotRequestId -> { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks like a basic use-case that we could move into a reusable FixedSizeTestingSlotProvider extends TestingSlotProvider class with a Collection<CompletableFuture<LogicalSlot>> getSlotFutures() method.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. I will add this utility and refactor the test.
tillrohrmann
force-pushed
the
FLINK-12021
branch
from
2d1178c to
61f40e4
Compare
shuai-xu
approved these changes
Mar 28, 2019
Contributor
shuai-xu
left a comment
shuai-xu
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cool, it is useful for us.
Contributor
Author
…shipCall Fix the race condition between executing EmbeddedLeaderService#GrantLeadershipCall and a concurrent shutdown of the leader service by making GrantLeadershipCall not accessing mutable state outside of a lock. This closes apache#7935.
Due to changes how the slot futures are completed and due to the fact that the ResultConjunctFuture does not maintain the order in which the futures were specified, it could happen that executions were not deployed in topological order. This commit fixes this problem by changing the ResultConjunctFuture so that it maintains the order of the specified futures in its result collection. This closes apache#8060.
tillrohrmann
force-pushed
the
FLINK-12021
branch
from
61f40e4 to
afe607c
Compare
HuangZhenQiu
pushed a commit
to HuangZhenQiu/flink
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2019
Due to changes how the slot futures are completed and due to the fact that the ResultConjunctFuture does not maintain the order in which the futures were specified, it could happen that executions were not deployed in topological order. This commit fixes this problem by changing the ResultConjunctFuture so that it maintains the order of the specified futures in its result collection. This closes apache#8060.
sunhaibotb
pushed a commit
to sunhaibotb/flink
that referenced
this pull request
May 8, 2019
Due to changes how the slot futures are completed and due to the fact that the ResultConjunctFuture does not maintain the order in which the futures were specified, it could happen that executions were not deployed in topological order. This commit fixes this problem by changing the ResultConjunctFuture so that it maintains the order of the specified futures in its result collection. This closes apache#8060.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
What is the purpose of the change
Due to changes how the slot futures are completed and due to the fact that the
ResultConjunctFuture does not maintain the order in which the futures were specified,
it could happen that executions were not deployed in topological order. This commit
fixes this problem by changing the ResultConjunctFuture so that it maintains the order
of the specified futures in its result collection.
This also fixes a performance regression when deploying tasks since deploying tasks in non-topological order can lead to additional result partition lookups.
Verifying this change
ExecutionGraphDeploymentTest#testExecutionGraphIsDeployedInTopologicalOrderandConjunctFutureTest#testConjunctFutureCompletion.Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:
@Public(Evolving): (no)Documentation