Hi Piotrek,
`MailOptions` looks good to me. I suggest not doubling the existing
methods. Only providing the following one is enough:
void execute(
> MailOptions mailOptions,
> ThrowingRunnable<? extends Exception> command,
> String descriptionFormat,
> Object... descriptionArgs);
WDYT?
Best,
Zakelly
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 12:53 AM Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi Zakelly and others,
>
> > 1. I'd suggest also providing `isInterruptable()` in `Mail`, and the
> > continuation mail will return true. The FLIP-425 will leverage this queue
> > to execute some state requests, and when the cp arrives, the operator may
> > call `yield()` to drain. It may happen that the continuation mail is
> called
> > again in `yield()`. By checking `isInterruptable()`, we can skip this
> mail
> > and re-enqueue.
>
> Do you have some suggestions on how `isInterruptible` should be defined?
> Do we have to double the amount of methods in the `MailboxExecutor`, to
> provide versions of the existing methods, that would enqueue
> "interruptible"
> versions of mails? Something like:
>
> default void execute(ThrowingRunnable<? extends Exception> command,
> String description) {
> execute(DEFAULT_OPTIONS, command, description);
> }
>
> default void execute(MailOptions options, ThrowingRunnable<? extends
> Exception> command, String description) {
> execute(options, command, description, EMPTY_ARGS);
> }
>
> default void execute(
> ThrowingRunnable<? extends Exception> command,
> String descriptionFormat,
> Object... descriptionArgs) {
> execute(DEFAULT_OPTIONS, command, descriptionFormat,
> descriptionArgs);
> }
>
> void execute(
> MailOptions options,
> ThrowingRunnable<? extends Exception> command,
> String descriptionFormat,
> Object... descriptionArgs);
>
> public static class MailOptions {
> (...)
> public MailOptions() {
> }
>
> MailOptions setIsInterruptible() {
> this.isInterruptible = true;
> return this;
> }
> }
>
> And usage would be like this:
>
> mailboxExecutor.execute(new MailOptions().setIsInterruptible(), () -> {
> foo(); }, "foo");
>
> ?
>
> Best,
> Piotrek
>
> czw., 16 maj 2024 o 11:26 Rui Fan <1996fan...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > > we checked in the firing timers benchmark [1] and we didn't observe any
> > > performance regression.
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback, it's good news to hear that. I didn't notice
> > we already have fireProcessingTimers benchmark.
> >
> > If so, we can follow it after this FLIP is merged.
> >
> > +1 for this FLIP.
> >
> > Best,
> > Rui
> >
> > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 5:13 PM Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Zakelly,
> > >
> > > > I'm suggesting skipping the continuation mail during draining of
> async
> > > state access.
> > >
> > > I see. That makes sense to me now. I will later update the FLIP.
> > >
> > > > the code path will become more complex after this FLIP
> > > due to the addition of shouldIntterupt() checks, right?
> > >
> > > Yes, that's correct.
> > >
> > > > If so, it's better to add a benchmark to check whether the job
> > > > performance regresses when one job has a lot of timers.
> > > > If the performance regresses too much, we need to re-consider it.
> > > > Of course, I hope the performance is fine.
> > >
> > > I had the same concerns when initially David Moravek proposed this
> > > solution,
> > > but we checked in the firing timers benchmark [1] and we didn't observe
> > any
> > > performance regression.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Piotrek
> > >
> > > [1] http://flink-speed.xyz/timeline/?ben=fireProcessingTimers&env=3
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > wt., 7 maj 2024 o 09:47 Rui Fan <1996fan...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > >
> > > > Overall this FLIP is fine for me. I have a minor concern:
> > > > IIUC, the code path will become more complex after this FLIP
> > > > due to the addition of shouldIntterupt() checks, right?
> > > >
> > > > If so, it's better to add a benchmark to check whether the job
> > > > performance regresses when one job has a lot of timers.
> > > > If the performance regresses too much, we need to re-consider it.
> > > > Of course, I hope the performance is fine.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Rui
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 6:30 PM Zakelly Lan <zakelly....@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm saying the scenario where things happen in the following order:
> > > > > 1. advance watermark and process timers.
> > > > > 2. the cp arrives and interrupts the timer processing, after this
> the
> > > > > continuation mail is in the mailbox queue.
> > > > > 3. `snapshotState` is called, where the async state access
> responses
> > > will
> > > > > be drained by calling `tryYield()` [1]. —— What if the continuation
> > > mail
> > > > is
> > > > > triggered by `tryYield()`?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm suggesting skipping the continuation mail during draining of
> > async
> > > > > state access.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/1904b215e36e4fd48e48ece7ffdf2f1470653130/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/asyncprocessing/AsyncExecutionController.java#L305
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Zakelly
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 6:00 PM Piotr Nowojski <
> pnowoj...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Zakelly,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you elaborate a bit more on what you have in mind? How
> marking
> > > > mails
> > > > > as
> > > > > > interruptible helps with something? If an incoming async state
> > access
> > > > > > response comes, it could just request to interrupt any currently
> > > > ongoing
> > > > > > computations, regardless the currently executed mail is or is not
> > > > > > interruptible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Piotrek
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pon., 6 maj 2024 o 06:33 Zakelly Lan <zakelly....@gmail.com>
> > > > napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the improvement, overall +1 for this. I'd leave a
> > minor
> > > > > > comment:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. I'd suggest also providing `isInterruptable()` in `Mail`,
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > > continuation mail will return true. The FLIP-425 will leverage
> > this
> > > > > queue
> > > > > > > to execute some state requests, and when the cp arrives, the
> > > operator
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > call `yield()` to drain. It may happen that the continuation
> mail
> > > is
> > > > > > called
> > > > > > > again in `yield()`. By checking `isInterruptable()`, we can
> skip
> > > this
> > > > > > mail
> > > > > > > and re-enqueue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Zakelly
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 4:35 PM Yanfei Lei <fredia...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for your answers, Piotrek. I got it now. +1 for this
> > > > > > improvement.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Yanfei
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Richter <srich...@confluent.io.invalid> 于2024年4月30日周二
> > > > > 21:30写道：
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the improvement proposal, I’m +1 for the change!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Stefan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 30. Apr 2024, at 15:23, Roman Khachatryan <
> > > ro...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposal, I definitely see the need for
> this
> > > > > > > > improvement, +1.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Roman
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 3:11 PM Piotr Nowojski <
> > > > > > pnowoj...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > <mailto:pnowoj...@apache.org>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Hi Yanfei,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the feedback!
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> 1. Currently when AbstractStreamOperator or
> > > > > > > AbstractStreamOperatorV2
> > > > > > > > > >>> processes a watermark, the watermark will be sent to
> > > > > downstream,
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > >>> the `InternalTimerServiceImpl#advanceWatermark` is
> > > > interrupted,
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > >>> is the watermark sent downstream?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> The watermark would be outputted by an operator only
> once
> > > all
> > > > > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > > >> timers are fired.
> > > > > > > > > >> In other words, if firing of timers is interrupted a
> > > > > continuation
> > > > > > > > mail to
> > > > > > > > > >> continue firing those
> > > > > > > > > >> interrupted timers is created. Watermark will be emitted
> > > > > > downstream
> > > > > > > > at the
> > > > > > > > > >> end of that
> > > > > > > > > >> continuation mail.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> 2. IIUC, processing-timer's firing is also encapsulated
> > > into
> > > > > mail
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>> executed in mailbox. Is processing-timer allowed to be
> > > > > > interrupted?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Yes, both firing processing and even time timers share
> the
> > > > same
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> both will
> > > > > > > > > >> support interruptions in the same way. Actually I've
> > renamed
> > > > the
> > > > > > > FLIP
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Interruptible watermarks processing
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> to:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Interruptible timers firing
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> to make this more clear.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >> Piotrek
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> wt., 30 kwi 2024 o 06:08 Yanfei Lei <
> fredia...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Hi Piotrek,
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks for this proposal. It looks like it will shorten
> > the
> > > > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > >>> duration, especially in the case of back pressure. +1
> for
> > > it!
> > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > >>> like to ask some questions to understand your thoughts
> > more
> > > > > > > > precisely.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> 1. Currently when AbstractStreamOperator or
> > > > > > > AbstractStreamOperatorV2
> > > > > > > > > >>> processes a watermark, the watermark will be sent to
> > > > > downstream,
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > >>> the `InternalTimerServiceImpl#advanceWatermark` is
> > > > interrupted,
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > >>> is the watermark sent downstream?
> > > > > > > > > >>> 2. IIUC, processing-timer's firing is also encapsulated
> > > into
> > > > > mail
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>> executed in mailbox. Is processing-timer allowed to be
> > > > > > interrupted?
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > >>> Yanfei
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> 于2024年4月29日周一
> > > 21:57写道：
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I would like to start a discussion on FLIP-443:
> > > > Interruptible
> > > > > > > > watermark
> > > > > > > > > >>>> processing.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/qgn9EQ&source=gmail-imap&ust=1715088370000000&usg=AOvVaw0eTZDvLwdZUDai5GqoSGrD
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> This proposal tries to make Flink's subtask thread
> more
> > > > > > responsive
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > >>>> processing watermarks/firing timers, and make those
> > > > operations
> > > > > > > > > >>>> interruptible/break them apart into smaller steps. At
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > > > time,
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> proposed solution could be potentially adopted in
> other
> > > > places
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> code
> > > > > > > > > >>>> base as well, to solve similar problems with other
> > > > > flatMap-like
> > > > > > > > > >> operators
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (non windowed joins, aggregations, CepOperator, ...).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I'm looking forward to your thoughts.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Piotrek
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
