Skip to content

[SPARK-26963][MLLIB] SizeEstimator can't make some JDK fields accessible in Java 9+ #23866

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
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

[SPARK-26963][MLLIB] SizeEstimator can't make some JDK fields accessible in Java 9+ #23866

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
16 changes: 14 additions & 2 deletions core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/util/SizeEstimator.scala
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -334,9 +334,21 @@ object SizeEstimator extends Logging {
if (fieldClass.isPrimitive) {
sizeCount(primitiveSize(fieldClass)) += 1
} else {
field.setAccessible(true) // Enable future get()'s on this field
// Note: in Java 9+ this would be better with trySetAccessible and canAccess
try {
field.setAccessible(true) // Enable future get()'s on this field
pointerFields = field :: pointerFields
Copy link
Contributor

@imatiach-msft imatiach-msft Feb 22, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should this be inside the try:

pointerFields = field :: pointerFields

it seems like we could still record it even if the setAccessible failed?

Copy link
Member Author

@srowen srowen Feb 22, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, the point is that we don't want to try to access it below; it's not accessible

} catch {
// If the field isn't accessible, we can still record the pointer size
// but can't know more about the field, so ignore it
case _: SecurityException =>
// do nothing
// Java 9+ can throw InaccessibleObjectException but the class is Java 9+-only
case re: RuntimeException
if re.getClass.getSimpleName == "InaccessibleObjectException" =>
Copy link
Contributor

@imatiach-msft imatiach-msft Feb 22, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

minor comment/question: if it's not an InaccessibleObjectException, wouldn't it throw a case match error which might be confusing? Just wondering if a default catch-all should re-raise the original "re: RuntimeException"

Copy link
Member Author

@srowen srowen Feb 22, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The exception would just propagate, as before, if it's not matched by either case. That's what we want, if something else goes wrong.

// do nothing
}
sizeCount(pointerSize) += 1
pointerFields = field :: pointerFields
}
}
}
Expand Down