Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FLINK-37206][Runtime] Fix initialization of batching timer service in async state operators #26071

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Zakelly
Copy link
Contributor

@Zakelly Zakelly commented Jan 24, 2025

What is the purpose of the change

We have ship two abstract stream operators for async state processing, where a async timer service (manager) is introduced. Actually these operators can run in sync mode, this is especially the case for batch execution mode. Currently there is an issue when initializing batching timer service in those operators. This PR fixes this to enable batch execution for operators with async state.

Brief change log

  • Introduce BatchExecutionInternalTimeServiceWithAsyncState and properly create this in async state operators.

Verifying this change

This change added test BatchExecutionInternalTimeServiceWithAsyncStateTest.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): no
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): no
  • The serializers: no
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): yes
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: no
  • The S3 file system connector: no

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? no
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? not applicable

@Zakelly Zakelly requested a review from fredia January 24, 2025 04:47
* Sets the current key. Timers that are due to be fired are collected and will be triggered.
*/
@Override
public void setCurrentKey(K currentKey) throws Exception {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The core difference between timer service for async operators and the original one is here. Replace direct call of triggerTarget.onXXXXXTime() with a wrapper of maintainContextAndProcess

@Zakelly
Copy link
Contributor Author

Zakelly commented Jan 24, 2025

@fredia @codenohup Would you please take a look?

Copy link
Contributor

@codenohup codenohup left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks for the fix! @Zakelly

I have verified this PR by running a WordCount job in DataStream V2 API and batch mode.

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Jan 24, 2025

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

@Zakelly
Copy link
Contributor Author

Zakelly commented Jan 24, 2025

Thanks @codenohup !

Copy link
Contributor

@fredia fredia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR, overall LGTM, only one minor comment.

} else if (factory instanceof AsyncKeyedStateBackendAdaptor) {
theFactory =
(BatchExecutionKeyedStateBackend<K>)
((AsyncKeyedStateBackendAdaptor<K>) factory).getKeyedStateBackend();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Check ((AsyncKeyedStateBackendAdaptor<K>) factory).getKeyedStateBackend() is BatchExecutionKeyedStateBackend here?

And update the description of IllegalStateException below.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updated accordingly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants