[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7153?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16235458#comment-16235458
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-7153:
---------------------------------------
Github user tillrohrmann commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4916#discussion_r148479985
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/executiongraph/ExecutionVertex.java
---
@@ -476,14 +482,13 @@ else if (numSources < parallelism) {
* @return The preferred locations based in input streams, or an empty
iterable,
* if there is no input-based preference.
*/
- public Iterable<TaskManagerLocation>
getPreferredLocationsBasedOnInputs() {
+ public Collection<CompletableFuture<TaskManagerLocation>>
getPreferredLocationsBasedOnInputs() {
// otherwise, base the preferred locations on the input
connections
if (inputEdges == null) {
return Collections.emptySet();
}
else {
- Set<TaskManagerLocation> locations = new HashSet<>();
- Set<TaskManagerLocation> inputLocations = new
HashSet<>();
+ Set<CompletableFuture<TaskManagerLocation>>
inputLocations = new HashSet<>(4);
--- End diff --
For example in the case of the broadcast join with lazy scheduling, it
could be the case that the broadcasting operator produces first and thus
triggers the `scheduleOrUpdateConsumers` call on the `ExecutionGraph`. This
will then trigger the scheduling of the join operator. At this time, there
might only be the location of the broadcast operator known. However, since we
only return the forward operator's location future which has not been
completed, the lazy scheduling will schedule without location preference
because the `LocationPreferenceConstraint` is `ANY`.
> Eager Scheduling can't allocate source for ExecutionGraph correctly
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-7153
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7153
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JobManager
> Affects Versions: 1.3.1
> Reporter: Sihua Zhou
> Assignee: Till Rohrmann
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 1.4.0, 1.3.3
>
>
> The ExecutionGraph.scheduleEager() function allocate for ExecutionJobVertex
> one by one via calling ExecutionJobVertex.allocateResourcesForAll(), here is
> two problem about it:
> 1. The ExecutionVertex.getPreferredLocationsBasedOnInputs will always return
> empty, cause `sourceSlot` always be null until `ExectionVertex` has been
> deployed via 'Execution.deployToSlot()'. So allocate resource base on
> prefered location can't work correctly, we need to set the slot info for
> `Execution` as soon as Execution.allocateSlotForExecution() called
> successfully?
> 2. Current allocate strategy can't allocate the slot optimize. Here is the
> test case:
> {code}
> JobVertex v1 = new JobVertex("v1", jid1);
> JobVertex v2 = new JobVertex("v2", jid2);
> SlotSharingGroup group = new SlotSharingGroup();
> v1.setSlotSharingGroup(group);
> v2.setSlotSharingGroup(group);
> v1.setParallelism(2);
> v2.setParallelism(4);
> v1.setInvokableClass(BatchTask.class);
> v2.setInvokableClass(BatchTask.class);
> v2.connectNewDataSetAsInput(v1, DistributionPattern.POINTWISE,
> ResultPartitionType.PIPELINED_BOUNDED);
> {code}
> Currently, after allocate for v1,v2, we got a local partition and three
> remote partition. But actually, it should be 2 local partition and 2 remote
> partition.
> The causes of the above problems is becuase that the current allocate
> strategy is allocate the resource for execution one by one(if the execution
> can allocate from SlotGroup than get it, Otherwise ask for a new one for it).
> If we change the allocate strategy to two step will solve this problem, below
> is the Pseudo code:
> {code}
> for (ExecutionJobVertex ejv: getVerticesTopologically) {
> //step 1: try to allocate from SlothGroup base on inputs one by one (which
> only allocate resource base on location).
> //step 2: allocate for the remain execution.
> }
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
