Open
Conversation
frankmcsherry
changed the title
Member
Author
|
I've tracked down and I believe fixed the timely glitch, over in TimelyDataflow/timely-dataflow#360. I think we can close this, or merge it as looking directly at the trace frontier does seem smarter. Perhaps it can linger while we test out the timely fix. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I'm seeing a weird glitch out of timely dataflow in a heavily loaded scenario (32 worker threads on my laptop) that seems to provide incorrect frontier information to the
lookup_mapoperator. I'm investigating that independently, as the reach of that issue could be much larger, but this fix is sane anyhow: directly consult the trace to see what times it views as closed rather than making the leap from input frontier to that quantity indirectly.