[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7757?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16190813#comment-16190813
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-7757:
---------------------------------------
Github user bowenli86 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4764
The implementation of having s2 `acquire()` a lock while s1 still holds
that lock seems problematic to me. Why not making it a `tryAcquire()`, as that
in java semaphore?
> RocksDB lock is too strict and can block snapshots in synchronous phase
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-7757
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7757
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: State Backends, Checkpointing
> Affects Versions: 1.2.2, 1.3.2
> Reporter: Stefan Richter
> Assignee: Stefan Richter
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.4.0
>
>
> {{RocksDBKeyedStateBackend}} uses a lock to guard the db instance against
> disposal of the native resources while some parallel threads might still
> access db, which might otherwise lead to segfaults.
> Unfortunately, this locking is a bit to strict and can lead to situations
> where snapshots block the pipeline. This can happen when a snapshot s1 is
> running and somewhere blocking in IO while holding the guarding lock. A
> second snapshot s2 can be triggered in parallel and requires to hold the lock
> in the synchronous part to get a snapshot from db. As s1 is still holding on
> to the lock, s2 can block here and stop the operator from processing further
> elements.
> A simple solution could remove lock acquisition from the synchronous phase,
> because both, synchronous phase and disposing the backend are only allowed to
> be triggered from the thread that also drives element processing.
> A better solution would be to remove long sections under the lock all
> together, because as of now they will always prevent the possibility of
> parallel checkpointing. I think a guard for the rocksdb instance would be
> sufficient that blocks disposal for as long as there are still clients
> potentially accessing the instance in parallel. This could be realized by
> keeping a synchronized counter for active clients and block disposal until
> the client count drops to zero.
> This approach could also be integrated with triggering timers, which have
> always been problematic in the disposal phase are currently unregulated. In
> the new model, they could register as yet another client.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
