showuon commented on a change in pull request #11722:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11722#discussion_r800338273
##########
File path:
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/internals/RecordAccumulator.java
##########
@@ -578,41 +594,46 @@ private boolean
shouldStopDrainBatchesForPartition(ProducerBatch first, TopicPar
} else {
if (shouldStopDrainBatchesForPartition(first, tp))
break;
+ }
- boolean isTransactional = transactionManager != null &&
transactionManager.isTransactional();
- ProducerIdAndEpoch producerIdAndEpoch =
- transactionManager != null ?
transactionManager.producerIdAndEpoch() : null;
- ProducerBatch batch = deque.pollFirst();
- if (producerIdAndEpoch != null && !batch.hasSequence()) {
- // If the producer id/epoch of the partition do not
match the latest one
- // of the producer, we update it and reset the
sequence. This should be
- // only done when all its in-flight batches have
completed. This is guarantee
- // in `shouldStopDrainBatchesForPartition`.
-
transactionManager.maybeUpdateProducerIdAndEpoch(batch.topicPartition);
-
- // If the batch already has an assigned sequence, then
we should not change the producer id and
- // sequence number, since this may introduce
duplicates. In particular, the previous attempt
- // may actually have been accepted, and if we change
the producer id and sequence here, this
- // attempt will also be accepted, causing a duplicate.
- //
- // Additionally, we update the next sequence number
bound for the partition, and also have
- // the transaction manager track the batch so as to
ensure that sequence ordering is maintained
- // even if we receive out of order responses.
- batch.setProducerState(producerIdAndEpoch,
transactionManager.sequenceNumber(batch.topicPartition), isTransactional);
-
transactionManager.incrementSequenceNumber(batch.topicPartition,
batch.recordCount);
- log.debug("Assigned producerId {} and producerEpoch {}
to batch with base sequence " +
- "{} being sent to partition {}",
producerIdAndEpoch.producerId,
- producerIdAndEpoch.epoch, batch.baseSequence(),
tp);
-
- transactionManager.addInFlightBatch(batch);
- }
- batch.close();
- size += batch.records().sizeInBytes();
- ready.add(batch);
+ batch = deque.pollFirst();
+
+ boolean isTransactional = transactionManager != null &&
transactionManager.isTransactional();
+ ProducerIdAndEpoch producerIdAndEpoch =
+ transactionManager != null ?
transactionManager.producerIdAndEpoch() : null;
+ if (producerIdAndEpoch != null && !batch.hasSequence()) {
+ // If the producer id/epoch of the partition do not match
the latest one
+ // of the producer, we update it and reset the sequence.
This should be
+ // only done when all its in-flight batches have
completed. This is guarantee
+ // in `shouldStopDrainBatchesForPartition`.
+
transactionManager.maybeUpdateProducerIdAndEpoch(batch.topicPartition);
+
+ // If the batch already has an assigned sequence, then we
should not change the producer id and
+ // sequence number, since this may introduce duplicates.
In particular, the previous attempt
+ // may actually have been accepted, and if we change the
producer id and sequence here, this
+ // attempt will also be accepted, causing a duplicate.
+ //
+ // Additionally, we update the next sequence number bound
for the partition, and also have
+ // the transaction manager track the batch so as to ensure
that sequence ordering is maintained
+ // even if we receive out of order responses.
+ batch.setProducerState(producerIdAndEpoch,
transactionManager.sequenceNumber(batch.topicPartition), isTransactional);
+
transactionManager.incrementSequenceNumber(batch.topicPartition,
batch.recordCount);
+ log.debug("Assigned producerId {} and producerEpoch {} to
batch with base sequence " +
+ "{} being sent to partition {}",
producerIdAndEpoch.producerId,
+ producerIdAndEpoch.epoch, batch.baseSequence(), tp);
- batch.drained(now);
+ transactionManager.addInFlightBatch(batch);
}
}
+
+ // the rest of the work by processing outside the lock
+ // close() is particularly expensive
+
+ batch.close();
Review comment:
Looks like it won't happen since we only lock on deque object, but just
want to confirm, to make sure it won't break anything.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jira-unsubscr...@kafka.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
