[FLINK-15370][state backends] Make sure sharedResources takes effect in RocksDBResourceContainer

[carp84]

What is the purpose of the change

Currently we never uses the sharedResources in RocksDBResourceContainer, and in RocksDBStateBackend.createKeyedStateBackend we set the shared write buffer manager to the dbOptions but never pass/use it in RocksDBKeyedStateBackendBuilder, which leads to the result that different RocksDB backends actually are using separate write buffer managers thus the total memory control is invalid.

Brief change log

Always set write buffer manager to the one from sharedResources if it's non-null, in RocksDBResourceContainer.getDbOptions.

Verifying this change

This change added a new testSharedResources test case to cover the problematic case.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (no)
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (no)
• The serializers: (no)
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (no)
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (no)
• The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
• If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable)

[carp84]

@Myasuka @StephanEwen Please help review when time allows, thanks!

[flinkbot]

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit deed827 (Tue Dec 24 04:46:14 UTC 2019)

Warnings:

• No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

_{Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.}

Review Progress

• ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
• ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
• ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
• ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
• ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.

The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
• @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
• @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
• @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
• @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• deed827 Travis: FAILURE Azure: FAILURE
• 88d1a9e Travis: SUCCESS Azure: SUCCESS
• 54b5b8d Travis: SUCCESS Azure: SUCCESS

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
• @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

[Myasuka]

LGTM

It could be better to describe clearly that once sharedResources is not null, we would set write buffer manager extracted from sharedResources.

[StephanEwen]

Taking a look now...

[StephanEwen]

Good fix, +1 to merge for both master and release-1.10.

[StephanEwen]

Merging this...