[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9913?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16614464#comment-16614464
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-9913:
---------------------------------------
zhijiangW commented on a change in pull request #6417: [FLINK-9913][runtime]
Improve output serialization only once in RecordWriter
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6417#discussion_r217619644
##########
File path:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/io/network/api/writer/RecordWriter.java
##########
@@ -87,62 +86,71 @@ public RecordWriter(ResultPartitionWriter writer,
ChannelSelector<T> channelSele
this.numChannels = writer.getNumberOfSubpartitions();
- /*
- * The runtime exposes a channel abstraction for the produced
results
- * (see {@link ChannelSelector}). Every channel has an
independent
- * serializer.
- */
- this.serializers = new SpanningRecordSerializer[numChannels];
+ this.serializer = new SpanningRecordSerializer<T>();
this.bufferBuilders = new Optional[numChannels];
for (int i = 0; i < numChannels; i++) {
- serializers[i] = new SpanningRecordSerializer<T>();
bufferBuilders[i] = Optional.empty();
}
}
public void emit(T record) throws IOException, InterruptedException {
+ serializer.serializeRecord(record);
+
for (int targetChannel : channelSelector.selectChannels(record,
numChannels)) {
- sendToTarget(record, targetChannel);
+ copyToTarget(targetChannel);
}
+
+ // Make sure we don't hold onto the large intermediate
serialization buffer for too long
+ serializer.prune();
}
/**
* This is used to broadcast Streaming Watermarks in-band with records.
This ignores
* the {@link ChannelSelector}.
*/
public void broadcastEmit(T record) throws IOException,
InterruptedException {
+ serializer.serializeRecord(record);
+
for (int targetChannel = 0; targetChannel < numChannels;
targetChannel++) {
- sendToTarget(record, targetChannel);
+ copyToTarget(targetChannel);
}
+
+ serializer.prune();
}
/**
* This is used to send LatencyMarks to a random target channel.
*/
public void randomEmit(T record) throws IOException,
InterruptedException {
- sendToTarget(record, rng.nextInt(numChannels));
- }
+ serializer.serializeRecord(record);
- private void sendToTarget(T record, int targetChannel) throws
IOException, InterruptedException {
- RecordSerializer<T> serializer = serializers[targetChannel];
+ copyToTarget(rng.nextInt(numChannels));
- SerializationResult result = serializer.addRecord(record);
+ serializer.prune();
+ }
+ private void copyToTarget(int targetChannel) throws IOException,
InterruptedException {
+ // We should reset the initial position of the intermediate
serialization buffer before
+ // copying, so the serialization results can be copied to
multiple target buffers.
+ serializer.reset();
+
+ BufferBuilder bufferBuilder = getBufferBuilder(targetChannel);
+ SerializationResult result =
serializer.copyToBufferBuilder(bufferBuilder);
while (result.isFullBuffer()) {
- if (tryFinishCurrentBufferBuilder(targetChannel,
serializer)) {
- // If this was a full record, we are done. Not
breaking
- // out of the loop at this point will lead to
another
- // buffer request before breaking out (that
would not be
- // a problem per se, but it can lead to stalls
in the
- // pipeline).
- if (result.isFullRecord()) {
- break;
- }
+ tryFinishCurrentBufferBuilder(targetChannel);
Review comment:
Thanks for this further suggestion!
I agree with the idea of making the logic simple in the loop part and reduce
the overhead related with the `BufferBuilder` array.
I adjust the process a bit different with above codes. I think
`bufferBuilders[targetChannel] = Optional.ofNullable(bufferBuilder)` do not
need to be called every time during copy, because it only makes sense when it
enters into the `while` process. Considering for common cases of small records,
one `BuilderBuilder` can hold many serialization results, so I still retain set
`BufferBuilder` array after requesting new buffer, and it only has a little
overhead if one serialization record spans multiple `BufferBuilder`s. What do
you think?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
> Improve output serialization only once in RecordWriter
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-9913
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9913
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Network
> Affects Versions: 1.6.0
> Reporter: zhijiang
> Assignee: zhijiang
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 1.7.0
>
>
> Currently the {{RecordWriter}} emits output into multi channels via
> {{ChannelSelector}} or broadcasts output to all channels directly. Each
> channel has a separate {{RecordSerializer}} for serializing outputs, that
> means the output will be serialized as many times as the number of selected
> channels.
> As we know, data serialization is a high cost operation, so we can get good
> benefits by improving the serialization only once.
> I would suggest the following changes for realizing it.
> # Only one {{RecordSerializer}} is created in {{RecordWriter}} for all the
> channels.
> # The output is serialized into the intermediate data buffer only once for
> different channels.
> # The intermediate serialization results are copied into different
> {{BufferBuilder}}s for different channels.
> An additional benefit by using a single serializer for all channels is that
> we get a potentially significant reduction on heap space overhead from fewer
> intermediate serialization buffers (only once we got over 5MiB, these buffers
> were pruned back to 128B!).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
