dmvk commented on code in PR #21908:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/21908#discussion_r1104904147
##########
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/scheduler/adaptive/allocator/SlotSharingSlotAllocator.java:
##########
@@ -133,7 +138,56 @@ public Optional<VertexParallelismWithSlotSharing>
determineParallelism(
return Optional.of(new
VertexParallelismWithSlotSharing(allVertexParallelism, assignments));
}
- private static Map<JobVertexID, Integer> determineParallelism(
+ /**
+ * Distributes free slots across the slot-sharing groups of the job. Slots
are distributed as
+ * evenly as possible while taking the minimum parallelism of contained
vertices into account.
+ */
+ private static Map<SlotSharingGroupId, Integer>
determineSlotsPerSharingGroup(
+ JobInformation jobInformation, int freeSlots) {
+ int numUnassignedSlots = freeSlots;
+ int numUnassignedSlotSharingGroups =
jobInformation.getSlotSharingGroups().size();
+
+ final Map<SlotSharingGroupId, Integer> slotSharingGroupParallelism =
new HashMap<>();
+
+ for (Tuple2<SlotSharingGroup, Integer> slotSharingGroup :
+ sortSlotSharingGroupsByUpperParallelism(jobInformation)) {
+ final int groupParallelism =
+ Math.min(
+ slotSharingGroup.f1,
+ numUnassignedSlots /
numUnassignedSlotSharingGroups);
Review Comment:
Agreed, the declarative API should be powerful enough to allow users to
express the trade-off they're willing to make.
As suggested, setting the "lower bound" = "upper bound" for parallelism will
probably do the trick. Let's discuss is on the FLIP.
--
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]
