[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-31610?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17704604#comment-17704604
]
Anton Kalashnikov commented on FLINK-31610:
-------------------------------------------
[~Weijie Guo], [~fanrui], What do you think about the idea in the description?
Do you have any other ideas for simplification the code?
CC [~pnowojski]
> Refactoring of LocalBufferPool
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-31610
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-31610
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Runtime / Network
> Affects Versions: 1.17.0
> Reporter: Anton Kalashnikov
> Priority: Major
>
> FLINK-31293 bug highlighted the issue with the internal mutual consistency of
> different fields in LocalBufferPool. ex.:
> - `numberOfRequestedOverdraftMemorySegments`
> - `numberOfRequestedMemorySegments`
> - `availableMemorySegment`
> - `currentPoolSize`
> Most of the problem was fixed already(I hope) but it is a good idea to
> reorganize the code in such a way that all invariants between all fields
> inside will be clearly determined and difficult to break.
> As one example I can propose getting rid of
> numberOfRequestedOverdraftMemorySegments and using existing
> numberOfRequestedMemorySegments instead. That means:
> - the pool will be available when `!availableMemorySegments.isEmpty() &&
> unavailableSubpartitionsCount == 0`
> - we don't request a new `ordinary` buffer when
> `numberOfRequestedMemorySegments >= currentPoolSize` but we request the
> overdraft buffer instead
> - `setNumBuffers` should work automatically without any changes
> I think we can come up with a couple of such improvements to simplify the
> code.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
