Skip to content

[SPARK-6537] UIWorkloadGenerator: The main thread should not stop SparkContext until all jobs finish #5187

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
sarutak wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

[SPARK-6537] UIWorkloadGenerator: The main thread should not stop SparkContext until all jobs finish #5187

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 9 additions & 0 deletions core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/ui/UIWorkloadGenerator.scala
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@

package org.apache.spark.ui

import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore

import scala.util.Random

import org.apache.spark.{SparkConf, SparkContext}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -88,6 +90,8 @@ private[spark] object UIWorkloadGenerator {
("Job with delays", baseData.map(x => Thread.sleep(100)).count)
)

val barrier = new Semaphore(-nJobSet * jobs.size + 1)

(1 to nJobSet).foreach { _ =>
for ((desc, job) <- jobs) {
new Thread {
Expand All @@ -99,12 +103,17 @@ private[spark] object UIWorkloadGenerator {
} catch {
case e: Exception =>
println("Job Failed: " + desc)
} finally {
barrier.release()
}
}
}.start
Thread.sleep(INTER_JOB_WAIT_MS)
}
}

// Waiting for threads.
barrier.acquire()
Copy link
Contributor

@andrewor14 andrewor14 Mar 25, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why not just join() on all of those threads?

Copy link
Member Author

@sarutak sarutak Mar 25, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's because I didn't think it's simple to use join(); we need to allocate array for those threads and the main thread should call for each thread in the array.

But, I also think it's simpler to use CounDownLatch instead of Semaphore right?

Copy link
Contributor

@andrewor14 andrewor14 Mar 25, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hm yeah. Well I don't have a strong opinion either way. Either count down latch or semaphore is fine.

sc.stop()
}
}