[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-32137?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17725160#comment-17725160
 ] 

Rui Fan commented on FLINK-32137:
---------------------------------

Hi [~netvl] , thanks for your report.

It is an ease-of-use improvement for flame graph usage. After my analysis, the 
`MailboxDefaultAction to StreamTask.processInput` is also a lambda, it needs to 
be optimized as well. Would you like to make these improvements?

 

By the way, FLINK-30583 (Flink 1.17) supports viewing the flamegraph at the 
subtask level, it should be useful for troubleshooting. You can just view the 
subtask with high busy ratio.

!image-2023-05-23-11-01-30-391.png!

 

 

> Flame graph is hard to use with many task managers
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLINK-32137
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-32137
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Runtime / Web Frontend
>    Affects Versions: 1.16.1
>            Reporter: Vladimir Matveev
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: image (1).png, image-2023-05-23-11-01-30-391.png
>
>
> In case there are many task managers executing the same operator, the flame 
> graph becomes very hard to use. As you can see on the attached picture, it 
> considers instances of the same lambda function as different classes, and 
> their number seems to be equal to the number of task managers (i.e. each JVM 
> gets its own "class" name, which is expected for lambdas I guess). This 
> lambda function is deep within Flink's own call stack, so this kind of graph 
> is inevitable regardless of the job's own logic, and there is nothing we can 
> do at the job logic's level to fix it.
> This behavior makes evaluating the flame graph very hard, because all of the 
> useful information gets "compressed" inside each "column" of the graph, and 
> at the same time, it does not give any useful information since this is just 
> an artifact of the class name generation in the JVM.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

Reply via email to