LuciferYang commented on a change in pull request #31517:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/31517#discussion_r666650648
##########
File path:
core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/deploy/history/ApplicationCache.scala
##########
@@ -62,21 +61,25 @@ private[history] class ApplicationCache(
/**
* Removal event notifies the provider to detach the UI.
- * @param rm removal notification
+ * @param key removal key
+ * @param value removal value
*/
- override def onRemoval(rm: RemovalNotification[CacheKey, CacheEntry]):
Unit = {
+ override def onRemoval(key: CacheKey, value: CacheEntry,
+ cause: RemovalCause): Unit = {
metrics.evictionCount.inc()
- val key = rm.getKey
- logDebug(s"Evicting entry ${key}")
- operations.detachSparkUI(key.appId, key.attemptId,
rm.getValue().loadedUI.ui)
+ logDebug(s"Evicting entry $key")
+ operations.detachSparkUI(key.appId, key.attemptId, value.loadedUI.ui)
}
}
private val appCache: LoadingCache[CacheKey, CacheEntry] = {
- CacheBuilder.newBuilder()
- .maximumSize(retainedApplications)
- .removalListener(removalListener)
- .build(appLoader)
+ val builder = Caffeine.newBuilder()
+ .maximumSize(retainedApplications)
+ .removalListener(removalListener)
+ // SPARK-34309: Use custom Executor to compatible with
+ // the data eviction behavior of Guava cache
+ .executor((command: Runnable) => command.run())
Review comment:
Yes, it's a compromise for compatibility with old behaviour at present.
In the future, I will optimize this behaviour through other pr.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
