[SPARK-25903][Core] TimerTask should be synchronized on ContextBarrierState #25897
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
Member
Author
|
cc @cloud-fan |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Member
Author
|
retest this please. |
|
Test build #111198 has finished for PR 25897 at commit
|
|
Test build #111197 has finished for PR 25897 at commit
|
Member
Author
|
cc @jiangxb1987 |
Contributor
|
good catch! LGTM. Why do we need [test] in the title? |
Member
Author
|
Because SPARK-25903 is about one flaky test in BarrierTaskContextSuite. I found this issue when looking into the reason. Should I create another JIRA? |
Contributor
|
The [test] tag indicates the PR only changes code in tests, instead of indicating this PR targets a flaky test JIRA ticket. Let's remove the test tag. |
viirya
changed the title
Member
Author
|
Sure. Removed. Thanks. |
Contributor
|
thanks, merging to master/2.4! |
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2019
…rState ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? BarrierCoordinator sets up a TimerTask for a round of global sync. Currently the run method is synchronized on the created TimerTask. But to be synchronized with handleRequest, it should be synchronized on the ContextBarrierState object, not TimerTask object. ### Why are the changes needed? ContextBarrierState.handleRequest and TimerTask.run both access the internal status of a ContextBarrierState object. If TimerTask doesn't be synchronized on the same ContextBarrierState object, when the timer task is triggered, handleRequest still accepts new request and modify requesters field in the ContextBarrierState object. It makes the behavior inconsistency. ### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? Test locally Closes #25897 from viirya/SPARK-25903. Authored-by: Liang-Chi Hsieh <viirya@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> (cherry picked from commit d50f6e6) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
Member
|
Thank you, @viirya and @cloud-fan ! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 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?
BarrierCoordinator sets up a TimerTask for a round of global sync. Currently the run method is synchronized on the created TimerTask. But to be synchronized with handleRequest, it should be synchronized on the ContextBarrierState object, not TimerTask object.
Why are the changes needed?
ContextBarrierState.handleRequest and TimerTask.run both access the internal status of a ContextBarrierState object. If TimerTask doesn't be synchronized on the same ContextBarrierState object, when the timer task is triggered, handleRequest still accepts new request and modify requesters field in the ContextBarrierState object. It makes the behavior inconsistency.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Test locally