Mailing-List: contact issues-help@flink.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flink.apache.org
From: NicoK <git@git.apache.org>
To: issues@flink.incubator.apache.org
Reply-To: issues@flink.incubator.apache.org
References: <git-pr-4509-flink@git.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <git-pr-4509-flink@git.apache.org>
Subject: [GitHub] flink pull request #4509: [FLINK-7406][network] Implement Netty receiver inc...
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <20171009100202.0CCBAF5AF0@git1-us-west.apache.org>
Date: Mon,  9 Oct 2017 10:02:02 +0000 (UTC)
archived-at: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:02:06 -0000

Github user NicoK commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4509#discussion_r143233556
  
    --- Diff: flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/io/network/partition/consumer/RemoteInputChannel.java ---
    @@ -331,37 +353,41 @@ public int getNumberOfAvailableBuffers() {
     	 */
     	@Override
     	public boolean notifyBufferAvailable(Buffer buffer) {
    -		checkState(isWaitingForFloatingBuffers.get(), "This channel should be waiting for floating buffers.");
    +		checkState(isWaitingForFloatingBuffers, "This channel should be waiting for floating buffers.");
     
    +		boolean needMoreBuffers;
     		synchronized (availableBuffers) {
     			// Important: the isReleased check should be inside the synchronized block.
    -			if (isReleased.get() || availableBuffers.size() >= senderBacklog.get()) {
    -				isWaitingForFloatingBuffers.set(false);
    +			if (isReleased.get() || availableBuffers.size() >= senderBacklog.get() + initialCredit) {
    --- End diff --
    
    1) The `senderBacklog` is only ever accessed under the `synchronized(availableBuffers)`. I can't really think of a reason to drag it out of there and keep it an `AtomicInteger` at the moment - what do you think about making it a simple `int` instead?
    2) Since we release extraneous floating buffers in `recycle()`, I guess, `availableBuffers.size() > senderBacklog.get() + initialCredit` is not possible here, is it? Should we `checkState()` this and otherwise ignore this case in here?


---