[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-24005?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Zhu Zhu updated FLINK-24005: ---------------------------- Attachment: decrease_resource_requirements.log > Resource requirements declaration may be incorrect if JobMaster disconnects > with a TaskManager with available slots in the SlotPool > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: FLINK-24005 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-24005 > Project: Flink > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Runtime / Coordination > Affects Versions: 1.14.0, 1.12.5, 1.13.2 > Reporter: Zhu Zhu > Priority: Critical > Attachments: decrease_resource_requirements.log > > > When a TaskManager disconnects with JobMaster, it will trigger the > `DeclarativeSlotPoolService#decreaseResourceRequirementsBy()` for all the > slots that are registered to the JobMaster from the TaskManager. If the slots > are still available, i.e. not assigned to any task, the > `decreaseResourceRequirementsBy` may lead to incorrect resource requirements > declaration. > For example, there is one job with 3 source tasks only. It requires 3 slots > and declares for 3 slots. Initially all the tasks are running. Suddenly one > task failed and waits for some delay before restarting. The previous slot is > returned to the SlotPool. Now the job requires 2 slots and declares for 2 > slots. At this moment, the TaskManager of that returned slot get lost. After > the triggered `decreaseResourceRequirementsBy`, the job only declares for 1 > slot. Finally, when the failed task starts to re-schedule, the job will > declare for 2 slots while it actually needs 3 slots. > The attached log of a real job and logs of the added test in > https://github.com/zhuzhurk/flink/commit/59ca0ac5fa9c77b97c6e8a43dcc53ca8a0ad6c37 > can demonstrate this case. > Note that the real job is configured with a large > "restart-strategy.fixed-delay.delay" and and large "slot.idle.timeout". So > possibly in production it is a rare case. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)