[SPARK-14454] Better exception handling while marking tasks as failed #12234
Conversation
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
|
Test build #55196 has finished for PR 12234 at commit
|
sameeragarwal
changed the title
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so the thing is this exception doesn't make it to the driver. it would be great if the error message that made it to the driver can contain the error for both, and the original exception's cause. then users know there is another exception that failed during close/callback, and they can go look up in the executor for the full stacktrace
sameeragarwal
force-pushed
the
fix-exception
branch
from
eebd2ef to
7964b2d
Compare
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nice - didn't know this existed
|
Test build #55197 has finished for PR 12234 at commit
|
sameeragarwal
force-pushed
the
fix-exception
branch
from
7964b2d to
94b37f2
Compare
|
Test build #55198 has finished for PR 12234 at commit
|
sameeragarwal
force-pushed
the
fix-exception
branch
from
94b37f2 to
c9aaff0
Compare
| * fail as well. This would then suppress the original/likely more meaningful | ||
| * exception from the original `out.write` call. | ||
| */ | ||
| def tryWithSafeCatchAndFailureCallbacks[T](block: => T)(catchBlock: => Unit): T = { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems redundant with the method above; they can be unified right?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, thanks. folded these changes in the method above
|
Test build #55199 has finished for PR 12234 at commit
|
Member
Author
|
@davies are there other occurrences of this pattern? |
sameeragarwal
changed the title
Member
Author
|
test this please |
|
Test build #55297 has finished for PR 12234 at commit
|
|
Test build #55323 has finished for PR 12234 at commit
|
Contributor
|
LGTM, |
Contributor
|
@sameeragarwal can you create one for 1.6 backport? |
asfgit
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 11, 2016
…failed Backports #12234 to 1.6. Original description below: ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? This patch adds support for better handling of exceptions inside catch blocks if the code within the block throws an exception. For instance here is the code in a catch block before this change in `WriterContainer.scala`: ```scala logError("Aborting task.", cause) // call failure callbacks first, so we could have a chance to cleanup the writer. TaskContext.get().asInstanceOf[TaskContextImpl].markTaskFailed(cause) if (currentWriter != null) { currentWriter.close() } abortTask() throw new SparkException("Task failed while writing rows.", cause) ``` If `markTaskFailed` or `currentWriter.close` throws an exception, we currently lose the original cause. This PR fixes this problem by implementing a utility function `Utils.tryWithSafeCatch` that suppresses (`Throwable.addSuppressed`) the exception that are thrown within the catch block and rethrowing the original exception. ## How was this patch tested? No new functionality added Author: Sameer Agarwal <[email protected]> Closes #12272 from sameeragarwal/fix-exception-1.6.
zzcclp
pushed a commit
to zzcclp/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 12, 2016
…failed Backports apache#12234 to 1.6. Original description below: ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? This patch adds support for better handling of exceptions inside catch blocks if the code within the block throws an exception. For instance here is the code in a catch block before this change in `WriterContainer.scala`: ```scala logError("Aborting task.", cause) // call failure callbacks first, so we could have a chance to cleanup the writer. TaskContext.get().asInstanceOf[TaskContextImpl].markTaskFailed(cause) if (currentWriter != null) { currentWriter.close() } abortTask() throw new SparkException("Task failed while writing rows.", cause) ``` If `markTaskFailed` or `currentWriter.close` throws an exception, we currently lose the original cause. This PR fixes this problem by implementing a utility function `Utils.tryWithSafeCatch` that suppresses (`Throwable.addSuppressed`) the exception that are thrown within the catch block and rethrowing the original exception. ## How was this patch tested? No new functionality added Author: Sameer Agarwal <[email protected]> Closes apache#12272 from sameeragarwal/fix-exception-1.6. (cherry picked from commit c12db0d)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This patch adds support for better handling of exceptions inside catch blocks if the code within the block throws an exception. For instance here is the code in a catch block before this change in
WriterContainer.scala:If
markTaskFailedorcurrentWriter.closethrows an exception, we currently lose the original cause. This PR fixes this problem by implementing a utility functionUtils.tryWithSafeCatchthat suppresses (Throwable.addSuppressed) the exception that are thrown within the catch block and rethrowing the original exception.How was this patch tested?
No new functionality added