[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Stephan Ewen resolved FLINK-8856.
---------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed in
- 1.5.0 via 36dccdc520c676ca2c53046cad4ec80c351068b7
- 1.6.0 via 1e1237628a6bf05cdcdde6f9f3a236d961f05b5d
> Move all interrupt() calls to TaskCanceler
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-8856
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8856
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: TaskManager
> Reporter: Stephan Ewen
> Assignee: Stephan Ewen
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.5.0, 1.6.0
>
>
> We need this to work around the following JVM bug:
> https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8138622
> To circumvent this problem, the {{TaskCancelerWatchDog}} must not call
> {{interrupt()}} at all, but only join on the executing thread (with timeout)
> and cause a hard exit once cancellation takes to long.
> A user affected by this problem reported this in FLINK-8834
> Personal note: The Thread.join(...) method unfortunately is not 100% reliable
> as well, because it uses {{System.currentTimeMillis()}} rather than
> {{System.nanoTime()}}. Because of that, sleeps can take overly long when the
> clock is adjusted. I wonder why the JDK authors do not follow their own
> recommendations and use {{System.nanoTime()}} for all relative time
> measures...
> EDIT: I am not the only one wondering why:
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42544387/why-does-thread-join-use-currenttimemillis
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
