CrynetLogistics commented on pull request #18651:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/18651#issuecomment-1049884006
Sorry not sure why it didn't push my last comment, maybe because I commented
inline. I pasted it again here for continuity. :-)
@pnowojski I think this is completely wonderful. I believe then the code for
`completeRequest()` should be:
```
private void completeRequest(List<RequestEntryT> failedRequestEntries,
long requestStartTime) {
// do completeRequest stuff including reducing the
inFlightRequestsCount, etc.
mailboxExecutor.tryYield();
nonBlockingFlush();
}
```
We would get all the previously alluded to benefits.
My only question (and maybe worry) would be if we had a very large number of
in flight requests that have all completed (say 100+? since it's customisable
by user). Once one `completeRequest` is triggered, the
`mailboxExecutor.tryYield()` would repeatedly yield to the next completed
request in a daisy chain of length equal to the number of completed in flight
requests.
I imagine the state of the mailbox thread would have to live alongside the
others' states during that time and I was wondering would that risk us using
more stack/heap than otherwise and thereby risking an overflow?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
