Hello Sachin, Thanks for your finds!! Just to add what Damian said regarding 1), in KIP-129 where we are introducing exactly-once processing semantics to Streams we have also described different categories of error handling for exactly-once. Commit exceptions due to rebalance will be handled as "producer fenced" which will not be thrown to the users as we already did in trunk.
As for the second issue you brought up, I agree it is indeed a bug; but just to clarify it is the CREATION of the first task including restoring stores that can take longer than MAX_POLL_INTERVAL_MS_CONFIG, not processing it right (we are only start processing until all tasks have been created and initialized)? Guozhang On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Sachin Mittal <sjmit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please find the JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4848 > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Sachin, > > > > If it is a bug then please file a JIRA for it, too. > > > > Thanks, > > Damian > > > > On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 at 11:23 Sachin Mittal <sjmit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Ok that's great. > > > So you have already fixed that issue. > > > > > > I have modified my PR to remove that change (which was done keeping > > > 0.10.2.0 in mind). > > > > > > However the other issue is still valid. > > > > > > Please review that change. https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/2642 > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Sachin > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On trunk the CommitFailedException isn't thrown anymore. The > > > commitOffsets > > > > method doesn't throw an exception. It returns one if it was thrown. > We > > > used > > > > to throw this exception during suspendTasksAndState, but we don't > > > anymore. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 at 05:04 Sachin Mittal <sjmit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > On CommitFailedException at onPartitionsRevoked if it is thrown it > > gets > > > > > assigned to rebalanceException. > > > > > This causes the stream thread to shutdown. I am not sure how we can > > > > resume > > > > > the thread. > > > > > > > > > > Note thread is not in invalid state because because it already has > > been > > > > > assigned new partitions and this exception happens when trying to > > > revoke > > > > > old partitions which have been moved to some other thread, so we > need > > > to > > > > > swallow this exception at the StreanThread side too, just like we > > > swallow > > > > > it at ConsumerCoordinator.java > > > > > > > > > > Also I fixed this against code base 0.10.2.0 and the difference in > > that > > > > vs > > > > > trunk code is these lines > > > > > 10.2.0 > > > > > if (firstException.get() == null) { > > > > > firstException.set(commitOffsets()); > > > > > } > > > > > vs trunk > > > > > if (firstException.get() == null) { > > > > > // TODO: currently commit failures will not be thrown > to > > > > users > > > > > // while suspending tasks; this need to be re-visit > after > > > > > KIP-98 > > > > > commitOffsets(); > > > > > } > > > > > I am again not sure since this part is still a TODO, but looking at > > > code > > > > I > > > > > see that commitOffsets can still throw the CommitFailedException > > which > > > > > needs to be handled at onPartitionsRevoked. > > > > > > > > > > Hope this makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > On second issue, the deadlock is not caused by > CommitFailedExceptio, > > > but > > > > > after fixing the deadlock we need to make sure thread does not die > > due > > > to > > > > > unhandled CommitFailedException at onPartitionsRevoked. > > > > > The deadlock issue is like this. > > > > > If a thread has two partitions and while processing partition one > it > > > > takes > > > > > more than MAX_POLL_INTERVAL_MS_CONFIG time, then this thread is > > evicted > > > > > from the group and both partitions are now migrated to some other > > > thread. > > > > > Now when it tries to process the partition two it tries to get the > > lock > > > > to > > > > > rocks db. It won't get the lock since that partition is now moved > to > > > some > > > > > other thread. So it keeps increasing the backoffTimeMs and keeps > > trying > > > > to > > > > > get the lock forever. This reaching a deadlock. > > > > > To fix this we need some upper bound of the time limit till it > tries > > to > > > > get > > > > > that lock. And that upper bound has to be > > MAX_POLL_INTERVAL_MS_CONFIG, > > > > > because if by that time it has not got the lock, we can see that > this > > > > > thread was evicted from the group and need to rejoin again to get > new > > > > > partitions. > > > > > > > > > > On JIRA issue I can create one and attach the part of logs where it > > > keeps > > > > > trying to get the lock with increasing backoffTimeM. > > > > > > > > > > Let me know if these makes sense. Right now this is the best way we > > > could > > > > > come up with to handle stream thread failures. > > > > > > > > > > Also on a side note I feel we need more resilient streams. If we > have > > > say > > > > > configured our streams application with 4 threads and for whatever > > > > reason a > > > > > thread dies, then application should itself (or via some exposed > > > hooks), > > > > > allow to restart a new thread (because in Java I guess same thread > > > cannot > > > > > be restarted), so that number of threads always stay what one has > > > > > configured. > > > > > I think exposed hooks will be better option to do this. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Sachin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Matthias J. Sax < > > matth...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sachin, > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks a lot for contributing! > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, I am not sure if I understand the change. On > > > > > > CommitFailedException, why can we just resume the thread? To me, > it > > > > > > seems that the thread will be in an invalid state and thus it's > not > > > > save > > > > > > to just swallow the exception and keep going. Can you shed some > > > light? > > > > > > > > > > > > And from my understanding, the deadlock is "caused" by the change > > > from > > > > > > above, right? So if it is save to swallow the exception, we > should > > do > > > > > > some "clean up" to avoid the deadlock in the first place, instead > > of > > > > > > applying and additional timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, if this is a bug, we should have a JIRA. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/5/17 4:11 AM, Sachin Mittal wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > Please find the new PR > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/2642/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see that in trunk there has been change which is different > from > > > in > > > > > > 10.2.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10.2.0 > > > > > > > if (firstException.get() == null) { > > > > > > > firstException.set(commitOffsets()); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > vs trunk > > > > > > > if (firstException.get() == null) { > > > > > > > // TODO: currently commit failures will not be > thrown > > > to > > > > > > users > > > > > > > // while suspending tasks; this need to be re-visit > > > after > > > > > > KIP-98 > > > > > > > commitOffsets(); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > I am not sure in view of this is is my part of the fix still > > valid. > > > > > Looks > > > > > > > like it is still valid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also on side note what is the policy of closing a branch that > is > > > just > > > > > > > released. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since you have release 10.2.0 we are using that and that is why > > > have > > > > > made > > > > > > > changes in that branch so that our changes just modify the > needed > > > > code > > > > > > and > > > > > > > we don't mess up the other released code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the new release released off the branch 10.2.0, if yes then > > you > > > > > should > > > > > > > not close it as there can be patch fixes on them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or is the release always made off the branch trunk. In that > case > > > how > > > > > can > > > > > > we > > > > > > > pick up the code on which the release binaries were created so > > when > > > > we > > > > > > > build the binary we have exactly same code as released one, > plus > > > any > > > > > > > changes (we or someone else) makes on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also if a branch is closed, then perhaps we should delete it or > > > mark > > > > it > > > > > > > closed or something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know how releases get created (off what > codebase), > > so > > > > we > > > > > > are > > > > > > > more exact in applying our changes to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > Sachin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Eno Thereska < > > > eno.there...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Sachin, one thing before the review, 0.10.2 is closed > > now, > > > > this > > > > > > >> needs to target trunk. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks > > > > > > >> Eno > > > > > > >>> On 5 Mar 2017, at 09:10, Sachin Mittal <sjmit...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Please review the PR and let me know if this makes sense. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/2640 > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Thanks > > > > > > >>> Sachin > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Eno Thereska < > > > > eno.there...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks Sachin for your contribution. Could you create a pull > > > > request > > > > > > out > > > > > > >>>> of the commit (so we can add comments, and also so you are > > > > > > acknowledged > > > > > > >>>> properly for your contribution)? > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks > > > > > > >>>> Eno > > > > > > >>>>> On 5 Mar 2017, at 07:34, Sachin Mittal <sjmit...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Hi, > > > > > > >>>>> So far in our experiment we have encountered 2 critical > bugs. > > > > > > >>>>> 1. If a thread takes more that MAX_POLL_INTERVAL_MS_CONFIG > to > > > > > > compute a > > > > > > >>>>> cycle it gets evicted from group and rebalance takes place > > and > > > it > > > > > > gets > > > > > > >>>> new > > > > > > >>>>> assignment. > > > > > > >>>>> However when this thread tries to commit offsets for the > > > revoked > > > > > > >>>> partitions > > > > > > >>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>> onPartitionsRevoked it will again throw the > > > > CommitFailedException. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> This gets handled by ConsumerCoordinatorso there is no > point > > to > > > > > > assign > > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > > >>>>> exception to > > > > > > >>>>> rebalanceException in StreamThread and stop it. It has > > already > > > > been > > > > > > >>>>> assigned new partitions and it can continue. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> So as fix in case on CommitFailedException I am not killing > > the > > > > > > >>>> StreamThrea. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> 2. Next we see a deadlock state when to process a task it > > takes > > > > > > longer > > > > > > >>>>> than MAX_POLL_INTERVAL_MS_CONFIG > > > > > > >>>>> time. Then this threads partitions are assigned to some > other > > > > > thread > > > > > > >>>>> including rocksdb lock. When it tries to process the next > > task > > > it > > > > > > >> cannot > > > > > > >>>>> get rocks db lock and simply keeps waiting for that lock > > > forever. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> in retryWithBackoff for AbstractTaskCreator we have a > > > > > backoffTimeMs = > > > > > > >>>> 50L. > > > > > > >>>>> If it does not get lock the we simply increase the time by > > 10x > > > > and > > > > > > keep > > > > > > >>>>> trying inside the while true loop. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> We need to have a upper bound for this backoffTimeM. If the > > > time > > > > is > > > > > > >>>> greater > > > > > > >>>>> than MAX_POLL_INTERVAL_MS_CONFIG and it still hasn't got > the > > > > lock > > > > > > >> means > > > > > > >>>>> this thread's partitions are moved somewhere else and it > may > > > not > > > > > get > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >>>>> lock again. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> So I have added an upper bound check in that while loop. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> The commits are here: > > > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/sjmittal/kafka/commit/ > > > > > > >> 6f04327c890c58cab9b1ae108af4ce > > > > > > >>>> 5c4e3b89a1 > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> please review and if you feel they make sense, please merge > > it > > > to > > > > > > main > > > > > > >>>>> branch. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks > > > > > > >>>>> Sachin > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
