fredia commented on code in PR #21050:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/21050#discussion_r1002943684
##########
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/state/SharedStateRegistryImpl.java:
##########
@@ -95,60 +95,78 @@ public StreamStateHandle registerReference(
entry = registeredStates.get(registrationKey);
if (entry == null) {
- // Additional check that should never fail, because only state
handles that are not
- // placeholders should
- // ever be inserted to the registry.
checkState(
- !isPlaceholder(state),
+ !isPlaceholder(newHandle),
"Attempt to reference unknown state: " +
registrationKey);
- entry = new SharedStateEntry(state, checkpointID);
+ LOG.trace(
+ "Registered new shared state {} under key {}.",
newHandle, registrationKey);
+ entry = new SharedStateEntry(newHandle, checkpointID);
registeredStates.put(registrationKey, entry);
- LOG.trace("Registered new shared state {} under key {}.",
entry, registrationKey);
- } else {
- // Delete if this is a real duplicate.
- // Note that task (backend) is not required to re-upload state
- // if the confirmation notification was missing.
- // However, it's also not required to use exactly the same
handle or placeholder
- if (!Objects.equals(state, entry.stateHandle)) {
- if (entry.confirmed || isPlaceholder(state)) {
- scheduledStateDeletion = state;
- } else {
- // Old entry is not in a confirmed checkpoint yet, and
the new one differs.
- // This might result from (omitted KG range here for
simplicity):
- // 1. Flink recovers from a failure using a checkpoint
1
- // 2. State Backend is initialized to UID xyz and a
set of SST: { 01.sst }
- // 3. JM triggers checkpoint 2
- // 4. TM sends handle: "xyz-002.sst"; JM registers it
under "xyz-002.sst"
- // 5. TM crashes; everything is repeated from (2)
- // 6. TM recovers from CP 1 again: backend UID "xyz",
SST { 01.sst }
- // 7. JM triggers checkpoint 3
- // 8. TM sends NEW state "xyz-002.sst"
- // 9. JM discards it as duplicate
- // 10. checkpoint completes, but a wrong SST file is
used
- // So we use a new entry and discard the old one:
- scheduledStateDeletion = entry.stateHandle;
- entry.stateHandle = state;
- }
- LOG.trace(
- "Identified duplicate state registration under key
{}. New state {} was determined to "
- + "be an unnecessary copy of existing
state {} and will be dropped.",
- registrationKey,
- state,
- entry.stateHandle);
- }
+ // no further handling
+ return entry.stateHandle;
+
+ } else if (entry.stateHandle == newHandle) {
+ // might be a bug but state backend is not required to use a
place-holder
+ LOG.debug(
+ "Duplicated registration under key {} with the same
object: {}",
+ registrationKey,
+ newHandle);
+ } else if (Objects.equals(entry.stateHandle, newHandle)) {
+ // might be a bug but state backend is not required to use a
place-holder
+ LOG.debug(
+ "Duplicated registration under key {} with the new
object: {}.",
+ registrationKey,
+ newHandle);
+ } else if (isPlaceholder(newHandle)) {
LOG.trace(
- "Updating last checkpoint for {} from {} to {}",
+ "Duplicated registration under key {} with a
placeholder (normal case)",
+ registrationKey);
+ scheduledStateDeletion = newHandle;
+ } else if (entry.confirmed) {
+ LOG.info(
+ "Duplicated registration under key {} of a new state:
{}. "
+ + "This might happen if checkpoint
confirmation was delayed and state backend re-uploaded the state. "
+ + "Discarding the new state and keeping the
old one which is included into a completed checkpoint",
registrationKey,
- entry.lastUsedCheckpointID,
- checkpointID);
- entry.advanceLastUsingCheckpointID(checkpointID);
- if (preventDiscardingCreatedCheckpoint) {
- entry.preventDiscardingCreatedCheckpoint();
- }
+ newHandle);
+ scheduledStateDeletion = newHandle;
+ } else {
+ // Old entry is not in a confirmed checkpoint yet, and the new
one differs.
+ // This might result from (omitted KG range here for
simplicity):
+ // 1. Flink recovers from a failure using a checkpoint 1
+ // 2. State Backend is initialized to UID xyz and a set of
SST: { 01.sst }
+ // 3. JM triggers checkpoint 2
+ // 4. TM sends handle: "xyz-002.sst"; JM registers it under
"xyz-002.sst"
+ // 5. TM crashes; everything is repeated from (2)
+ // 6. TM recovers from CP 1 again: backend UID "xyz", SST {
01.sst }
+ // 7. JM triggers checkpoint 3
+ // 8. TM sends NEW state "xyz-002.sst"
+ // 9. JM discards it as duplicate
+ // 10. checkpoint completes, but a wrong SST file is used
+ // So we use a new entry and discard the old one:
+ LOG.info(
Review Comment:
> does this message needs to be info level(or it can be debug level)
I think the probability of reaching this branch is low, so using info level
doesn't bring much overhead.
> If the checkpoint did not complete successfully, we can't reuse the sst
file in it, and the status of the file in the remote file system is unknown
(the generated file name is for the file in the remote file system)
When the number of concurrent checkpoint is bigger than 1, is only the last
triggered checkpoint completed?
Suppose`chk-x` and `chk-(x+1)` are pending at the same time, if the state
handles of `chk-x` are deleted by the registration of `chk-(x+1)`, `chk-x` is
broken. So, I think this is maybe a bug.
And I open [PR21136](https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/21136) to change
the log level, please help to review. :)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@flink.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
