Github user NicoK commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6254#discussion_r201272052
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/io/network/partition/consumer/RemoteInputChannel.java
---
@@ -594,22 +626,22 @@ public String getMessage() {
}
/**
- * Adds an exclusive buffer (back) into the queue and recycles
one floating buffer if the
+ * Adds an exclusive buffer (back) into the queue and removes
one floating buffer if the
* number of available buffers in queue is more than the
required amount.
*
* @param buffer The exclusive buffer to add
* @param numRequiredBuffers The number of required buffers
*
- * @return How many buffers were added to the queue
+ * @return How many buffers were added to the queue (<tt>0</tt>
or <tt>1</tt>) and the
+ * floating buffer which was removed and should be
released (outside!)
*/
- int addExclusiveBuffer(Buffer buffer, int numRequiredBuffers) {
+ Tuple2<Integer, Optional<Buffer>> addExclusiveBuffer(Buffer
buffer, int numRequiredBuffers) {
exclusiveBuffers.add(buffer);
if (getAvailableBufferSize() > numRequiredBuffers) {
--- End diff --
true, we could change that but the `BufferQueue` logic in
`addExclusiveBuffer` and `addFloatingBuffer` does not enforce this contract
(only outside code does). If outside code decides to break this contract (I
can't think of a reason why) than the current one-for-one logic with
`getAvailableBufferSize() > numRequiredBuffers` ensures that we do not further
deviate from the target.
This is purely a theoretical concern and definitely out of the scope of
this ticket - I would leave it unchanged for now since we don't gain anything
with that change.
---
