Skip to content

Conversation

@vanzin
Copy link
Contributor

@vanzin vanzin commented Jul 19, 2019

This would cause the timeout time to be negative, so executors would be
timed out immediately (instead of never).

I also tweaked a couple of log messages that could get pretty long when
lots of executors were active.

Added unit test (which failed without the fix).

…time.

This would cause the timeout time to be negative, so executors would be
timed out immediately (instead of never).

I also tweaked a couple of log messages that could get pretty long when
lots of executors were active.

Added unit test (which failed without the fix).
@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 20, 2019

Test build #107929 has finished for PR 25208 at commit adeae39.

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

activatedExecs += id
} else if (activatedExecs.size == 10) {
activatedExecs += "..."
}
Copy link
Member

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun Jul 20, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shall we wrap this with if (log.isDebugEnabled) { ... }, too?

needTimeoutUpdate = true
activatedExecs += id
// Don't collect too many ids or the debug message becomes not very useful.
if (activatedExecs.size < 10) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what about having a method for this in order to avoid code duplication?

@mgaido91
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 22, 2019

Test build #108020 has finished for PR 25208 at commit 392e585.

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

Copy link
Member

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1, LGTM. Merged to master.
Thank you, @vanzin , @srowen, and @mgaido91 !

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun changed the title [SPARK-28455][core] Avoid overflow when calculating executor timeout time. [SPARK-28455][core] Avoid overflow when calculating executor timeout time Jul 22, 2019
@vanzin vanzin deleted the SPARK-28455 branch July 24, 2019 19:01
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.

5 participants