> > > > 2. Good point about the consequence when the processor threads are > blocking. I agree it would be important to keep the processor thread > running, but I am not sure if it would be a problem of the current > proposal. In most of the time, the request queue should be close to empty, > so the processor won't block. In cases where the queue is throttled because > of the bytes limit, the processor thread should only slow down but not > block for long, i.e. they will be able to make progress as fast as the > request handler threads. At that point, the broker is already processing > the requests at maximum speed. If the clients experiences timeout, the same > thing will likely happen even without the byte limit or we disable READ > from the sockets. The only difference is that the broker won't have OOM if > we have the bytes limit. > > Hi Becket,
I don't think progress can be made in the processor's run loop if the queue fills up. i.e., I think Jun's point is that if the queue is full (either due to the proposed max.bytes or today due to max.requests hitting the limit) then processCompletedReceives will block and no further progress can be made. Joel > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Radai, > > > > Thanks for the proposal. A couple of comments on this. > > > > 1. Since we store request objects in the request queue, how do we get an > > accurate size estimate for those requests? > > > > 2. Currently, it's bad if the processor blocks on adding a request to the > > request queue. Once blocked, the processor can't process the sending of > > responses of other socket keys either. This will cause all clients in > this > > processor with an outstanding request to eventually timeout. Typically, > > this will trigger client-side retries, which will add more load on the > > broker and cause potentially more congestion in the request queue. With > > queued.max.requests, to prevent blocking on the request queue, our > > recommendation is to configure queued.max.requests to be the same as the > > number of socket connections on the broker. Since the broker never > > processes more than 1 request per connection at a time, the request queue > > will never be blocked. With queued.max.bytes, it's going to be harder to > > configure the value properly to prevent blocking. > > > > So, while adding queued.max.bytes is potentially useful for memory > > management, for it to be truly useful, we probably need to address the > > processor blocking issue for it to be really useful in practice. One > > possibility is to put back-pressure to the client when the request queue > is > > blocked. For example, if the processor notices that the request queue is > > full, it can turn off the interest bit for read for all socket keys. This > > will allow the processor to continue handling responses. When the request > > queue has space again, it can indicate the new state to the process and > > wake up the selector. Not sure how this will work with multiple > processors > > though since the request queue is shared across all processors. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:28 AM, radai <radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I'd like to initiate a discussion about > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > 72%3A+Allow+Sizing+Incoming+Request+Queue+in+Bytes > > > > > > The goal of the KIP is to allow configuring a bound on the capacity (as > > in > > > bytes of memory used) of the incoming request queue, in addition to the > > > current bound on the number of messages. > > > > > > This comes after several incidents at Linkedin where a sudden "spike" > of > > > large message batches caused an out of memory exception. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Radai > > > > > >
