Sorry if I ask a question that has been addressed before. please point me to the reference.
How do we limit the cpu usage to a slot? Does the thread that executes the slot get paused when it uses CPU cycles more than it requests? On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:23 PM Xintong Song <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback, Andrey. > > I'll start the vote. > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:09 PM Andrey Zagrebin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the update @Xintong. > > I would be ok with starting the vote. > > > > Best, > > Andrey > > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:12 AM Xintong Song <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > The implementation plan [1] is updated, with the following changes: > > > > > > - Add default slot resource profile to > > > ResourceManagerGateway#registerTaskExecutor rather than > > #sendSlotReport. > > > - Swap 'TaskExecutor derive and register with default slot resource > > > profile' and 'Extend TaskExecutor to support dynamic slot > allocation' > > > - Add step for updating RestAPI / Web UI > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-56%3A+Dynamic+Slot+Allocation > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:49 AM Xintong Song <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > @Till > > > > Thanks for the reminding. I'll add a step for updating the web ui. > I'll > > > > try to involve Lining to help us with this step. > > > > > > > > @Andrey > > > > I was thinking that after we define the RM-TM interfaces in step 2, > it > > > > would be good to concurrently work on both RM and TM side. But yes, > if > > we > > > > finish Step 4 early, then it would make step 6 easier. We can start > to > > > have > > > > some IT/E2E tests, with the default slot resource profiles being > > > available. > > > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:50 PM Andrey Zagrebin < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> @Xintong > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for the feedback. > > > >> > > > >> Just to clarify step 6: > > > >> If the first point is done before step 5 (e.g. as part of 4) then it > > is > > > >> just keeping the info about the default slot in RM's data structure > > > >> associated the TM and no real change in the behaviour. > > > >> When this info is available, I think it can be straightforwardly > used > > > >> during step 5 where we get either concrete slot requirement > > > >> or the unknown one (step 6, point 2) which simply grabs some of the > > > >> concrete default ones (btw not clear which one, seems just some > > random?) > > > >> > > > >> For steps 5,7, true, it is not quite clear whether we can avoid some > > > >> split, > > > >> e.g. after step 5 before doing step 7. > > > >> I agree that we should introduce the feature flag if we clearly see > > that > > > >> it > > > >> would be a bigger effort without the flag. > > > >> > > > >> Best, > > > >> Andrey > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:21 PM Till Rohrmann <[email protected] > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > One thing which was briefly mentioned in the Flip but not in the > > > >> > implementation plan is the update of the web UI. I think it is > worth > > > >> > putting an extra item for updating the web UI to properly display > > the > > > >> > resources a TM has still to offer with dynamic slot allocation. I > > > guess > > > >> we > > > >> > need to pull in some JavaScript help in order to implement this > > step. > > > >> > > > > >> > Cheers, > > > >> > Till > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 2:15 PM Xintong Song < > [email protected] > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks for the comments, Andrey. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > - I agree that instead of ResourceManagerGateway#sendSlotReport, > > we > > > >> > should > > > >> > > add the default slot resource profile to > > > >> > > ResourceManagerGateway#registerTaskExecutor. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > - If I understand correctly, the reason you suggest do default > > slot > > > >> > > resource profile first and then do step 3 in a way that support > > both > > > >> > > TaskExecutorGateway#requestSlot and > > > >> TaskExecutorGateway#requestResource, > > > >> > is > > > >> > > to try to avoid splitting code paths with the feature option? I > > > think > > > >> we > > > >> > > can do that, but I also want to bring it up that this can only > > > reduce > > > >> the > > > >> > > code split by the feature option (which is good) but not > eliminate > > > >> it. We > > > >> > > still need the feature option for the fundamental differences, > > e.g. > > > >> > > creating new SlotIDs on allocation vs. allocate to free slots > with > > > >> > existing > > > >> > > SlotIDs. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > - I don't really think we can do step 5, 6 and 7 independently. > > > >> Basically > > > >> > > they are all making changes to the same component. We probably > can > > > do > > > >> > step > > > >> > > 6 and 7 independently, but I think they both depends on step 5. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > In general, I would say it's good to have as less as possible > > codes > > > >> split > > > >> > > by the feature option, which makes the later clean-up easier. > But > > if > > > >> it > > > >> > > cannot be easily done, I would rather not to put too much > efforts > > on > > > >> > having > > > >> > > a good abstraction and deduplication between the new code path > and > > > the > > > >> > > original one that we are removing soon. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > What do you think? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thank you~ > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Xintong Song > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:59 PM Andrey Zagrebin < > > > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Xintong, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for sharing the implementation steps. I also think they > > > makes > > > >> > > sense > > > >> > > > with the feature option. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I was wondering if we could order the steps in a way that each > > > >> change > > > >> > > does > > > >> > > > not affect other components too much, always having a working > > > system > > > >> > > > then maybe the feature option does not always need to split > the > > > >> code. > > > >> > > Here > > > >> > > > are some thoughts. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > - We could do default slot profile firstly and include it into > > the > > > >> TM > > > >> > > > registration. I would suggest to add > > > >> > > > to ResourceManagerGateway#registerTaskExecutor, not > > > sendSlotReport. > > > >> > > > This way RM knows about it but does not use at this point. > > > (parts > > > >> of > > > >> > > step > > > >> > > > 4,6) > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > - We could try to do step 3 firstly in a way that it also > > supports > > > >> the > > > >> > > > current way of allocation in TaskExecutorGateway#requestSlot > > with > > > >> the > > > >> > > > default slot profile > > > >> > > > and sends reports both with available resources and with > free > > > >> default > > > >> > > > slots which correspond to the available resources. We can just > > > >> remove > > > >> > > free > > > >> > > > default slots later. > > > >> > > > The new way of TaskExecutorGateway#requestResource could be > > also > > > >> > > > implemented here but not used yet. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > - Then step 5 can use the new > > TaskExecutorGateway#requestResource > > > >> and > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > default slot profile > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > - Not sure, step 5 and 7 can be implemented independently > > without > > > >> > > > regression of what we have. Maybe if we do step 7 firstly it > > will > > > >> have > > > >> > > only > > > >> > > > default slots firstly and it will simplify step 5 later. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Best, > > > >> > > > Andrey > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:53 AM Xintong Song < > > > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the comments, Till and Wenlong. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > @Wenlong > > > >> > > > > Regarding slot sharing, the general idea is to request a > slot > > > with > > > >> > > > > resources for tasks of the entire slot sharing group. > Details > > > can > > > >> be > > > >> > > > found > > > >> > > > > in FLIP-53 [1], regarding how to decide the slot sharing > > groups > > > >> and > > > >> > how > > > >> > > > to > > > >> > > > > manage task resources within the shared slots. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thank you~ > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Xintong Song > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:42 AM wenlong.lwl < > > > >> > [email protected]> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, Xintong, thanks for the great proposal. big +1 for the > > > >> feature! > > > >> > > It > > > >> > > > is > > > >> > > > > > something like mapreduce-1.0 to mapreduce-2.0. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I like the design on the whole. One point may need to be > > > >> included > > > >> > in > > > >> > > > the > > > >> > > > > > proposal：How we deal with slot share group and dynamic > slot > > > >> > > allocation? > > > >> > > > > It > > > >> > > > > > can be quite different with dynamic slot allocation. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 16:42, Till Rohrmann < > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks for the update Xintong. From a high level > > perspective > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > > > implementation plan looks good to me. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Cheers, > > > >> > > > > > > Till > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:04 AM Xintong Song < > > > >> > > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Added implementation steps for this FLIP on the wiki > > page > > > >> [1]. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1] > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-56%3A+Dynamic+Slot+Allocation > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:43 PM Xintong Song < > > > >> > > > [email protected]> > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > @Zili > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > As far as I know, Timo is drafting a FLIP that has > > taken > > > >> the > > > >> > > > number > > > >> > > > > > 55. > > > >> > > > > > > > > There is a round-up number maintained on the FLIP > wiki > > > >> page > > > >> > [1] > > > >> > > > > shows > > > >> > > > > > > > > which number should be used for the new FLIP, which > > > >> should be > > > >> > > > > > increased > > > >> > > > > > > > by > > > >> > > > > > > > > whoever takes the number for a new FLIP. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [1] > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:28 AM Zili Chen < > > > >> > > [email protected]> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> We suddenly skipped FLIP-55 lol. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Xintong Song <[email protected]> 于2019年8月19日周一 > > > >> > 下午10:23写道： > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Hi everyone, > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > We would like to start a discussion thread on > > > "FLIP-56: > > > >> > > > Dynamic > > > >> > > > > > Slot > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Allocation" [1]. This is originally part of the > > > >> discussion > > > >> > > > > thread > > > >> > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > "FLIP-53: Fine Grained Resource Management" [2]. > As > > > >> Till > > > >> > > > > > suggested, > > > >> > > > > > > we > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > would like split the original discussion into two > > > >> topics, > > > >> > > and > > > >> > > > > > start > > > >> > > > > > > a > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > separate new discussion thread as well as FLIP > > > process > > > >> for > > > >> > > > this > > > >> > > > > > one. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Thank you~ > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Xintong Song > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > [1] > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-56%3A+Dynamic+Slot+Allocation > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > [2] > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-53-Fine-Grained-Resource-Management-td31831.html > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- Regards, Tao
