Skip to content

Conversation

@squito
Copy link
Contributor

@squito squito commented Jul 24, 2018

In case there are any issues in converting FileSegmentManagedBuffer to
ChunkedByteBuffer, add a conf to go back to old code path.

Followup to 7e84764

In case there are any issues in converting FileSegmentManagedBuffer to
ChunkedByteBuffer, add a conf to go back to old code path.
@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 25, 2018

Test build #93520 has finished for PR 21867 at commit bc2ea46.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

// SPARK-24307 undocumented "escape-hatch" in case there are any issues in converting to
// to ChunkedByteBuffer, to go back to old code-path. Can be removed post Spark 2.4 if
// new path is stable.
if (conf.getBoolean("spark.fetchToNioBuffer", false)) {
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 have a better prefix, rather than just spark. ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since this condition is immutable, can we define a new variable whose value is assigned out of this method to reduce overhead?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sure -- the fetch-to-disk conf is "spark.maxRemoteBlockSizeFetchToMem" which is why I stuck with just "spark." prefix. Also on second thought, I will make the rest of it more specific too, as there is lots of "fetching" this doesn't effect.

how about "spark.network.remoteReadNioBufferConversion"?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we'd better to rename that one "spark.maxRemoteBlockSizeFetchToMem" also ?

if (data != null) {
return Some(ChunkedByteBuffer.fromManagedBuffer(data, chunkSize))
// SPARK-24307 undocumented "escape-hatch" in case there are any issues in converting to
// to ChunkedByteBuffer, to go back to old code-path. Can be removed post Spark 2.4 if
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: to ChunkedByteBuffer -> ChunkedByteBuffer

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

oops, thanks for catching that. fixed

@jiangxb1987
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 25, 2018

Test build #93545 has finished for PR 21867 at commit 1275c01.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 25, 2018

Test build #93548 has finished for PR 21867 at commit a5b00b8.

  • This patch fails Spark unit tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@squito
Copy link
Contributor Author

squito commented Jul 25, 2018

retest this please

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 25, 2018

Test build #93566 has finished for PR 21867 at commit a5b00b8.

  • This patch fails Spark unit tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@kiszk
Copy link
Member

kiszk commented Jul 25, 2018

LGTM

@kiszk
Copy link
Member

kiszk commented Jul 25, 2018

retest this please

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 26, 2018

Test build #93574 has finished for PR 21867 at commit a5b00b8.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@gatorsmile
Copy link
Member

Thanks! Merged to master.

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 2c82745 Jul 26, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants