[SPARK-44920][CORE] Use await() instead of awaitUninterruptibly() in TransportClientFactory.createClient() #42619
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
dongjoon-hyun
approved these changes
Aug 23, 2023
Member
dongjoon-hyun
left a comment
dongjoon-hyun
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1, LGTM. Thank you so much, @JoshRosen .
cloud-fan
approved these changes
Aug 23, 2023
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Aug 23, 2023
yaooqinn
approved these changes
Aug 23, 2023
Member
|
Could you re-trigger the failed test cases although it looks irrelevant, @JoshRosen ? |
yaooqinn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 23, 2023
…TransportClientFactory.createClient() ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? #41785 / SPARK-44241 introduced a new `awaitUninterruptibly()` call in one branch of `TrasportClientFactory.createClient()` (executed when the connection create timeout is non-positive). This PR replaces that call with an interruptible `await()` call. Note that the other pre-existing branches in this method were already using `await()`. ### Why are the changes needed? Uninterruptible waiting can cause problems when cancelling tasks. For details, see #16866 / SPARK-19529, an older PR fixing a similar issue in this same `TransportClientFactory.createClient()` method. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing tests. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #42619 from JoshRosen/remove-awaitUninterruptibly. Authored-by: Josh Rosen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 2137606) Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]>
yaooqinn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 23, 2023
…TransportClientFactory.createClient() ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? #41785 / SPARK-44241 introduced a new `awaitUninterruptibly()` call in one branch of `TrasportClientFactory.createClient()` (executed when the connection create timeout is non-positive). This PR replaces that call with an interruptible `await()` call. Note that the other pre-existing branches in this method were already using `await()`. ### Why are the changes needed? Uninterruptible waiting can cause problems when cancelling tasks. For details, see #16866 / SPARK-19529, an older PR fixing a similar issue in this same `TransportClientFactory.createClient()` method. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing tests. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #42619 from JoshRosen/remove-awaitUninterruptibly. Authored-by: Josh Rosen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 2137606) Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]>
yaooqinn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 23, 2023
…TransportClientFactory.createClient() ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? #41785 / SPARK-44241 introduced a new `awaitUninterruptibly()` call in one branch of `TrasportClientFactory.createClient()` (executed when the connection create timeout is non-positive). This PR replaces that call with an interruptible `await()` call. Note that the other pre-existing branches in this method were already using `await()`. ### Why are the changes needed? Uninterruptible waiting can cause problems when cancelling tasks. For details, see #16866 / SPARK-19529, an older PR fixing a similar issue in this same `TransportClientFactory.createClient()` method. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing tests. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #42619 from JoshRosen/remove-awaitUninterruptibly. Authored-by: Josh Rosen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 2137606) Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]>
Member
|
Thanks @JoshRosen @cloud-fan @HyukjinKwon and @dongjoon-hyun Merged to master, '3.5.0', '3.4.2', and '3.3.4' |
viirya
pushed a commit
to viirya/spark-1
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2023
…TransportClientFactory.createClient() ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? apache#41785 / SPARK-44241 introduced a new `awaitUninterruptibly()` call in one branch of `TrasportClientFactory.createClient()` (executed when the connection create timeout is non-positive). This PR replaces that call with an interruptible `await()` call. Note that the other pre-existing branches in this method were already using `await()`. ### Why are the changes needed? Uninterruptible waiting can cause problems when cancelling tasks. For details, see apache#16866 / SPARK-19529, an older PR fixing a similar issue in this same `TransportClientFactory.createClient()` method. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing tests. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes apache#42619 from JoshRosen/remove-awaitUninterruptibly. Authored-by: Josh Rosen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 2137606) Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]>
FMX
pushed a commit
to apache/celeborn
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2024
…tive celeborn.<module>.io.connectTimeout/connectionTimeout ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? `TransportClientFactory` should regard as zero for negative `celeborn.<module>.io.connectTimeout` and `celeborn.<module>.io.connectionTimeout`. ### Why are the changes needed? When `celeborn.<module>.io.connectionTimeout` is 0 that means unlimited to netty, `ChannelFuture.await(0)` fails directly and inappropriately. Meanwhile, whhen `celeborn.<module>.io.connectionTimeout` is less than 0 that causes meaningless transport client reconnections and endless reconstructions. Backport: - apache/spark#41785 - apache/spark#42619 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? `TransportClientFactorySuiteJ#unlimitedConnectAndConnectionTimeouts` Closes #2467 from SteNicholas/CELEBORN-1392. Authored-by: SteNicholas <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: mingji <[email protected]>
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?
#41785 / SPARK-44241 introduced a new
awaitUninterruptibly()call in one branch ofTrasportClientFactory.createClient()(executed when the connection create timeout is non-positive). This PR replaces that call with an interruptibleawait()call.Note that the other pre-existing branches in this method were already using
await().Why are the changes needed?
Uninterruptible waiting can cause problems when cancelling tasks. For details, see #16866 / SPARK-19529, an older PR fixing a similar issue in this same
TransportClientFactory.createClient()method.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Existing tests.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.