Github user markhamstra commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/15335#discussion_r82869819
  
    --- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/scheduler/DAGScheduler.scala 
---
    @@ -1255,27 +1255,46 @@ class DAGScheduler(
                   s"longer running")
               }
     
    -          if (disallowStageRetryForTest) {
    -            abortStage(failedStage, "Fetch failure will not retry stage 
due to testing config",
    -              None)
    -          } else if 
(failedStage.failedOnFetchAndShouldAbort(task.stageAttemptId)) {
    -            abortStage(failedStage, s"$failedStage (${failedStage.name}) " 
+
    -              s"has failed the maximum allowable number of " +
    -              s"times: ${Stage.MAX_CONSECUTIVE_FETCH_FAILURES}. " +
    -              s"Most recent failure reason: ${failureMessage}", None)
    -          } else {
    -            if (failedStages.isEmpty) {
    -              // Don't schedule an event to resubmit failed stages if 
failed isn't empty, because
    -              // in that case the event will already have been scheduled.
    -              // TODO: Cancel running tasks in the stage
    -              logInfo(s"Resubmitting $mapStage (${mapStage.name}) and " +
    -                s"$failedStage (${failedStage.name}) due to fetch failure")
    -              messageScheduler.schedule(new Runnable {
    -                override def run(): Unit = 
eventProcessLoop.post(ResubmitFailedStages)
    -              }, DAGScheduler.RESUBMIT_TIMEOUT, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)
    +          val shouldAbortStage =
    +            failedStage.failedOnFetchAndShouldAbort(task.stageAttemptId) ||
    +            disallowStageRetryForTest
    +
    +          if (shouldAbortStage) {
    +            val abortMessage = if (disallowStageRetryForTest) {
    +              "Fetch failure will not retry stage due to testing config"
    +            } else {
    +              s"""$failedStage (${failedStage.name})
    +                 |has failed the maximum allowable number of
    +                 |times: ${Stage.MAX_CONSECUTIVE_FETCH_FAILURES}.
    +                 |Most recent failure reason: 
$failureMessage""".stripMargin.replaceAll("\n", " ")
                 }
    +            abortStage(failedStage, abortMessage, None)
    +          } else { // update failedStages and make sure a 
ResubmitFailedStages event is enqueued
    +            // TODO: Cancel running tasks in the failed stage -- cf. 
SPARK-17064
    +            val noResubmitEnqueued = !failedStages.contains(failedStage)
                 failedStages += failedStage
                 failedStages += mapStage
    +            if (noResubmitEnqueued) {
    +              // We expect one executor failure to trigger many 
FetchFailures in rapid succession,
    +              // but all of those task failures can typically be handled 
by a single resubmission of
    +              // the failed stage.  We avoid flooding the scheduler's 
event queue with resubmit
    +              // messages by checking whether a resubmit is already in the 
event queue for the
    +              // failed stage.  If there is already a resubmit enqueued 
for a different failed
    +              // stage, that event would also be sufficient to handle the 
current failed stage, but
    +              // producing a resubmit for each failed stage makes 
debugging and logging a little
    +              // simpler while not producing an overwhelming number of 
scheduler events.
    +              logInfo(
    +                s"Resubmitting $mapStage (${mapStage.name}) and " +
    +                s"$failedStage (${failedStage.name}) due to fetch failure"
    +              )
    +              messageScheduler.schedule(
    --- End diff --
    
    1. I don't like "Periodically" in your suggested comment, since this is a 
one-shot action after a delay of RESUBMIT_TIMEOUT milliseconds.
    
    2. I agree that this delay-before-resubmit logic is suspect.  If we are 
both thinking correctly that a 200 ms delay on top of the time to re-run the 
`mapStage` is all but inconsequential, then removing it in this PR would be 
fine.  If there are unanticipated consequences, though, I'd prefer to have that 
change in a separate PR.  


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org

Reply via email to