Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Integrate direct path #31902

Open
wants to merge 26 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Integrate direct path #31902

wants to merge 26 commits into from

Conversation

m-trieu
Copy link
Contributor

@m-trieu m-trieu commented Jul 16, 2024

  • Add correct shutdown mechanics
  • remove deadline from direct path streaming RPCs
  • consume worker metadata more efficient (i.e remove polling)

R: @scwhittle

Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

  • Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
  • Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
  • If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

Build python source distribution and wheels
Python tests
Java tests
Go tests

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.

@m-trieu m-trieu changed the title Mt dp streams Add correct shutdown mechanics for direct path Jul 16, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

Assigning reviewers. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer:

R: @shunping added as fallback since no labels match configuration

Available commands:

  • stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
  • remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
  • waiting on author - shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)

The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments).

@Abacn
Copy link
Contributor

Abacn commented Jul 22, 2024

R: @scwhittle

Copy link
Contributor

Stopping reviewer notifications for this pull request: review requested by someone other than the bot, ceding control. If you'd like to restart, comment assign set of reviewers

@m-trieu m-trieu force-pushed the mt-dp-streams branch 3 times, most recently from 01e8586 to ff287f2 Compare August 6, 2024 12:25
Copy link
Contributor

@scwhittle scwhittle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not finished, mostly looking at stream stuff to help find what is causing stuckness

/** Send a request to the server. */
protected final void send(RequestT request) {
lastSendTimeMs.set(Instant.now().getMillis());
synchronized (this) {
// Check if we should send after we acquire the lock.
if (isShutdown()) {
LOG.warn("Send called on a shutdown stream.");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if this is possible, don't log as customers don't like warning logs and open issues about them

if this should not be possible, perhaps better to throw an exception so that we notice and fix it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

}
}

/** Starts the underlying stream. */
protected final void startStream() {
// Add the stream to the registry after it has been fully constructed.
streamRegistry.add(this);
while (true) {
while (!isShutdown.get()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd just remove this check since you do it first thing below

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

return;
}
private void tryRestartStream() {
if (!isShutdown()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this looks racy, we check shutdown above in isStreamDone with synchronization, but then if it is shutdown before here, we end up with an error but won't restart the stream or remove it from the registry.

I would remove this one

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

setLastError(error);
private synchronized boolean isStreamDone() {
if (isShutdown() || (clientClosed.get() && !hasPendingRequests())) {
streamRegistry.remove(AbstractWindmillStream.this);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this kind of side effect is confusing in method that just sounds like an accessor

how about maybeTeardownStream()?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add a comment on return value

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

@@ -176,7 +180,7 @@ private StreamingDataflowWorker(
DataflowWorkerHarnessOptions options,
HotKeyLogger hotKeyLogger,
Supplier<Instant> clock,
StreamingWorkerStatusReporter workerStatusReporter,
Function<Supplier<Long>, StreamingWorkerStatusReporter> streamingWorkerStatusReporterFactory,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should this be a functional interface so you can document? it's unclear what the long supplier is

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

() -> {
try {
send(extension);
} catch (IllegalStateException e) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should we handle illegalstateexception internally? or rely on executeSafely to catch it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

@@ -182,6 +184,12 @@ protected void onResponse(StreamingCommitResponse response) {
}
}

@Override
protected void shutdownInternal() {
pending.values().forEach(pendingRequest -> pendingRequest.onDone.accept(CommitStatus.ABORTED));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm worried if pending has somethign inserted between iterating and clear

can you instead use an iterator where you remove as you go so everything removed is guaranteed to be aborted?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

@@ -163,7 +165,7 @@ protected void onResponse(StreamingCommitResponse response) {
continue;
}
PendingRequest done = pending.remove(requestId);
if (done == null) {
if (done == null && !isShutdown()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is going to get nullptr exception below, instead move the isShutdown check to whether or not to log inside this if

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

@m-trieu m-trieu force-pushed the mt-dp-streams branch 2 times, most recently from bbf2778 to 1e02463 Compare September 12, 2024 05:06
@@ -302,4 +301,12 @@ public Integer create(PipelineOptions options) {
return streamingOptions.isEnableStreamingEngine() ? Integer.MAX_VALUE : 1;
}
}

/** EnableStreamingEngine defaults to false unless one of the two experiments is set. */
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks like just 1 experiment

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

* Only send the next value if the phaser is not terminated by the time we acquire the lock since
* the phaser can be terminated at any time.
*/
private void tryOnNext(T value) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not sure these phaser checks are necessary since the outboundObserver itself should stop blocking for onNext if the notifier is terminated.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

but if the phaser is terminated, we don't want to call outboundObserver.onNext() right?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Even if you do check here there is still race between checking the phaser and calling onNext regardless. Internally the outboundObserver is already observing the phaser termination via getPhase() (and also blocking respecting phaser termination) so the extra check is just mental overhead I think.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

removed

return;
}
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
if (isReadyNotifier.isTerminated()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

don't think you need this, awaitAdvanceInterruptibly will return -1 if it's terminated.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

@@ -39,7 +39,9 @@
@ThreadSafe
public final class DirectStreamObserver<T> implements StreamObserver<T> {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe this change can be submitted separately? Would be nice to have a test for it showing the previous bug as well.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1, I was thinking why DirectStreamObserver needs to be modified for direct path.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we need to remove the blocking outside of the lock or else terminating the stream will be held up by the deadline waiting for a response

@@ -67,17 +70,18 @@ public <T extends GetWorkBudgetSpender> void distributeBudget(
GetWorkBudgetSpender getWorkBudgetSpender = streamAndDesiredBudget.getKey();
GetWorkBudget desired = streamAndDesiredBudget.getValue();
GetWorkBudget remaining = getWorkBudgetSpender.remainingBudget();
if (isBelowFiftyPercentOfTarget(remaining, desired)) {
if (isBelowFiftyPercentOfTarget(remaining, desired) && isActiveWorkBudgetAware) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is unclear to me. It seems like in one case the adjustment is addtiive and another is resetting

Wouldn't we want to only increase by the desired-remaining in either case?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

whether its overriding or additive is depending on the internal implementation of GetWorkBudgetSpender.adjustBudget()

based on the current implementation that this is reflecting, we do not account for remaining budget here it is handled internally in adjustBudget.

@m-trieu m-trieu force-pushed the mt-dp-streams branch 2 times, most recently from 4820b9f to d03b0bc Compare September 13, 2024 05:19
Copy link
Contributor

@scwhittle scwhittle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

didn't get through everything but sending comments I had

+ "<th>Active For</th>"
+ "<th>State</th>"
+ "<th>State Active For</th>"
+ "<th>Produced By</th>"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: produced is confusing since we use that for shuffle terminology. How about just "Backend"

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

getWorkBudgetRefresher.requestBudgetRefresh();
getWorkBudgetDistributor.distributeBudget(newStreams.values(), totalGetWorkBudget);

// Close the streams outside the lock.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah I don't know if we need to block on closing streams. I think we might want to block on creating the new ones.

one possible thing is that if we are leaking stuff and they never actually close we might not know. But if we have the stream registry I think we'd see that. Or we can add some logging to closeAllStreams that it is taking a long time.

private final Supplier<StreamObserver<RequestT>> requestObserverSupplier;

@GuardedBy("this")
private volatile @Nullable StreamObserver<RequestT> delegateRequestObserver;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You don't need both, synchronization also ensures that memory changes are viewed by other threads. Volatile just ensures one fields's changes are visible to other threads.

This seems like a good overview: https://blogs.oracle.com/javamagazine/post/java-thread-synchronization-volatile-final-atomic-deadlocks

}

@Override
public synchronized void onCompleted() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

rm synchronized?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

still synchronized

}
streamRegistry.stream()
.sorted(Comparator.comparing(AbstractWindmillStream::backendWorkerToken))
.collect(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I missed the multimap bit. I agree the grouping is nice. However isn't the sorting then unnecessary if we're putting it in a map right away?

@@ -264,24 +284,18 @@ protected void startThrottleTimer() {

@Override
public void adjustBudget(long itemsDelta, long bytesDelta) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can we name this setBudget?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

} catch (AppendableInputStream.InvalidInputStreamStateException
| VerifyException
| CancellationException e) {
handleShutdown(request);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we make shutdown handling consistent?
we throw an exception for shutdown here but if we don't run the loop due to isShutdown we just return from this function without doing anything.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we do throw a WindmillStreamShutdownException at the bottom if we exit the loop

private void handleShutdown(QueuedRequest request) {
if (isShutdown()) {
throw new WindmillStreamShutdownException(
"Cannot send request=[" + request + "] on closed stream.");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if we keep this, should we pass in the exception above to add as a suppressed exception?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

}
}

ImmutableList<String> createStreamCancelledErrorMessage() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

add parameter for the limit or just inline above? We're building up a possibly big list just to ignore most of it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

@m-trieu m-trieu force-pushed the mt-dp-streams branch 3 times, most recently from d95d1b5 to 9bad2d7 Compare September 20, 2024 03:53
@m-trieu
Copy link
Contributor Author

m-trieu commented Sep 20, 2024

@scwhittle ready for another look! I will resolve the merge conflicts and rebase

@m-trieu m-trieu changed the title Add correct shutdown mechanics for direct path Integrate direct path Sep 26, 2024
@m-trieu
Copy link
Contributor Author

m-trieu commented Sep 27, 2024

@scwhittle FanOutStreamingEngineWorkerHarnessTest.testOnNewWorkerMetadata_redistributesBudget() was flaky. fixed!

Copy link
Contributor

@scwhittle scwhittle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry I didn't finish up reviewing and will be on vacation next week. Perhaps you could have Arun take a look.

In particular I need some more time to go over the stream changes as that affects the dispatcher path too.

? WindmillStreamPool.create(
1, GET_DATA_STREAM_TIMEOUT, windmillServer::getDataStream)
: getDataStreamPool);
statusPagesBuilder
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can the status page stuff be moved after this block so it can be shared for the SE paths? It seems like same stuff is duplicated for direct and not

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the only similarity is the DebugCapture manager I can consolidate that

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

consolidated in builder construction

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

moved creation to after harness intialization block

@@ -402,14 +455,15 @@ public static StreamingDataflowWorker fromOptions(DataflowWorkerHarnessOptions o
options,
new HotKeyLogger(),
clock,
workerStatusReporter,
workerStatusReporterFactory,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should we just pass in the builder prepopulated instead of a factory?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

wanted to constrain the interface to not allow callers to modify the other members
but if passing in a builder is preferred i can do that

private void consumeWorkerMetadata(WindmillEndpoints windmillEndpoints) {
synchronized (metadataLock) {
// Only process versions greater than what we currently have to prevent double processing of
// metadata.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

add comemnt: the consumer is single-threaded so we maintain ordering.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

// Only process versions greater than what we currently have to prevent double processing of
// metadata.
if (windmillEndpoints.version() > metadataVersion) {
metadataVersion = windmillEndpoints.version();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe it woudl be good to have pendingMetadataVersion (updated here) and activeMetadataVersion (which you update after consuming). That could help debugging since it could show if we're stuck on some old version.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done
we could add that information to the status pages (probably separate PR).

we only check pendingMetadataVersion then since pending == active if there are no updates pending

@@ -155,9 +155,11 @@ void closeAllStreams() {

@Override
public void adjustBudget(long itemsDelta, long bytesDelta) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

name setBudget as well?
update variables to not be delta, adjustment if it is just a total budget request

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

@@ -123,6 +124,8 @@ private static Optional<HostAndPort> tryParseDirectEndpointIntoIpV6Address(
directEndpointAddress.getHostAddress(), (int) endpointProto.getPort()));
}

public abstract long version();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

// The metadata version increases with every modification.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

// Keep trying to create the stream.
}
}
}

// We were never able to start the stream, remove it from the stream registry.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

// Otherwise it is removed when closed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

public void shutdown() {
public final void shutdown() {
// Don't lock here as isShutdown checks are used in the stream to free blocked
// threads or as exit conditions to loops.
if (isShutdown.compareAndSet(false, true)) {
requestObserver()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think requestObserver is thread-safe though? do we need to synchronize it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

requestObserver() is thread safe with its own internal synchronization.

}

@Override
public synchronized void onCompleted() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

still synchronized

synchronized (this) {
pending.put(id, pendingRequest);
for (int i = 0;
i < serializedCommit.size();
i < serializedCommit.size() && !isShutdown();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd remove the shutdown check since it's not consistent with other paths and probably won't matter if the send just won't do anything anyway.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

@m-trieu m-trieu force-pushed the mt-dp-streams branch 3 times, most recently from 19b50d9 to 745d87c Compare October 3, 2024 21:31
@Nullable ChannelzServlet channelzServlet = null;
Consumer<PrintWriter> getDataStatusProvider;
Supplier<Long> currentActiveCommitBytesProvider;
if (isDirectPathPipeline(options)) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this have to be set during pipeline creation? Thoughts on supporting on/off based on job settings?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sync'd offline

eventually will be propogated in workerMetadata, but there are some immutable settings that the VM needs to have that supports this, so we check here or fail.

… have it implement WorkProvider interface. Move class to windmill/work/provider directory, update visibility for dependent classes and move tests, add GetWorkBudgetOwnerInterface
… have it implement WorkProvider interface. Move class to windmill/work/provider directory, update visibility for dependent classes and move tests, add GetWorkBudgetOwnerInterface
… have it implement WorkProvider interface. Move class to windmill/work/provider directory, update visibility for dependent classes and move tests, add GetWorkBudgetOwnerInterface
… WindmillEndpoints and don't process any version that is older than the current version in FanOutStreamingEngineWorkerHarness
…ady 600 seconds anyway. Move DEFAULT_STREAM_RPC_DEADLINE_SECONDS to where it is being used and remove references in tests
// IsolationChannel will create and manage separate RPC channels to the same
// serviceAddress via calling the channelFactory, else just directly return the
// RPC channel.
workerOptions.getUseWindmillIsolatedChannels()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could choose to not support this for direct path and add it later if needed.
If we are keeping it, i think we need to use a different option to avoid confusing with the usage and rollout of the these flags in cloud path. In cloud path isolated channels are enabled based on this flag or job setting.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

removed

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thinking more, will it be better to default to isolated channels enabled? That'll be the closest to what we'll have in cloud path after #32782

Copy link
Contributor

@arunpandianp arunpandianp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Still need to look at the Streams classes, sending some more comments I've.

started = true;
}

public ImmutableSet<HostAndPort> currentWindmillEndpoints() {
return connections.get().windmillConnections().keySet().stream()
return connections.get().windmillStreams().keySet().stream()
.map(Endpoint::directEndpoint)
.filter(Optional::isPresent)
.map(Optional::get)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will filtering out IPV6 below prevent direct path endpoints from showing up in channelz?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we don't need that filter i am going to remove the IPV6 since we don't use that anymore

}

private synchronized CompletableFuture<ImmutableMap<Endpoint, WindmillStreamSender>>
createAndStartNewStreams(Collection<Endpoint> newWindmillConnections) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
createAndStartNewStreams(Collection<Endpoint> newWindmillConnections) {
createAndStartNewStreams(ImmutableSet<Endpoint> newWindmillConnections) {

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

Comment on lines 326 to 336
MoreFutures.allAsList(
newWindmillConnections.stream()
.map(
connection ->
MoreFutures.supplyAsync(
() ->
Pair.of(
connection,
Optional.ofNullable(currentStreams.get(connection))
.orElseGet(
() -> createAndStartWindmillStreamSender(connection))),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
MoreFutures.allAsList(
newWindmillConnections.stream()
.map(
connection ->
MoreFutures.supplyAsync(
() ->
Pair.of(
connection,
Optional.ofNullable(currentStreams.get(connection))
.orElseGet(
() -> createAndStartWindmillStreamSender(connection))),
MoreFutures.allAsList(
newWindmillEndpoints.stream()
.map(
endpoint ->
MoreFutures.supplyAsync(
() ->
Pair.of(
endpoint,
Optional.ofNullable(currentStreams.get(endpoint))
.orElseGet(
() -> createAndStartWindmillStreamSender(endpoint))),

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

WindmillConnection connection) {
// Initially create each stream with no budget. The budget will be eventually assigned by the
// GetWorkBudgetDistributor.
private WindmillStreamSender createAndStartWindmillStreamSender(Endpoint connection) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
private WindmillStreamSender createAndStartWindmillStreamSender(Endpoint connection) {
private WindmillStreamSender createAndStartWindmillStreamSender(Endpoint endpoint) {

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

Comment on lines 277 to 278
previousMetadataVersion,
activeMetadataVersion);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

previousMetadataVersion and activeMetadataVersion are same here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

closeStaleStreams(
newWindmillEndpoints.windmillEndpoints(), connections.get().windmillStreams());
ImmutableMap<Endpoint, WindmillStreamSender> newStreams =
createAndStartNewStreams(newWindmillEndpoints.windmillEndpoints()).join();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can defer the join() to be after creating the globalDataStreams.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

global data streams are created in createAndStartNewStreams

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

well not really created
we pass a factory to thr StreamGetDataClient

and it will get created whenever the user code fetches side input

WindmillConnection connection) {
// Initially create each stream with no budget. The budget will be eventually assigned by the
// GetWorkBudgetDistributor.
private WindmillStreamSender createAndStartWindmillStreamSender(Endpoint connection) {
WindmillStreamSender windmillStreamSender =
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we need a dispatcher fallback in createWindmillStub?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

for fallback
if we don't pass in direct endpoint we will just fallback to dispatcher stub

at some point we were thinking about supporting dispatcher as a passthrough proxy with the user worker telling it which backend to hit and this would also allow that

@@ -156,29 +162,47 @@ public void sendHealthCheck() {
protected void onResponse(StreamingCommitResponse response) {
commitWorkThrottleTimer.stop();

RuntimeException finalException = null;
@Nullable RuntimeException failure = null;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Create a new Exception here and attach all failures as suppressed?

Want to avoid marking failure from one request as suppressed of another.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

if (failure == null) {
failure = e;
} else {
failure.addSuppressed(e);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There could be 1000s of requests in the queue, do we want to add all of them here? Maybe only the finalException or a subset is enough?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is important that we track it some how? maybe keep account of the error/exception type
it's possible that some might have a real issue but others won't

actually maybe a subset is good

this is an error consuming the commit since at this point windmill is acking that the commit was either successful or failed. so maybe we can just record the status + failure or have a map<<status, exception>, count> and just log that

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

opted to record last 10 errors in detail and have a counter of <status, throwable.class> so we can keep track of any weird behavior

@@ -187,13 +211,14 @@ protected void startThrottleTimer() {
commitWorkThrottleTimer.start();
}

private void flushInternal(Map<Long, PendingRequest> requests) {
private void flushInternal(Map<Long, PendingRequest> requests) throws InterruptedException {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we need throws InterruptedException here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we do since it is a checked exception thrown by one of the methods inside flushInternal
we handle it in flush()

wanted to make it clear the flushInternal is blocking()
if we get interrupted we interrupt the thread, but always clear the queue and queuedBytes (in the finally block)

…e StreamingEngineConnectionsState to StreamingEngineBackends
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants