Skip to content
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.

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

[SPARK-5437] Fix DriverSuite and SparkSubmitSuite timeout issues #4230

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

andrewor14
Copy link
Contributor

In DriverSuite, we currently set a timeout of 60 seconds. If after this time the process has not terminated, we leak the process because we never destroy it.

In SparkSubmitSuite, we currently do not have a timeout so the test can hang indefinitely.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jan 27, 2015

Test build #26181 has started for PR 4230 at commit 8092c36.

  • This patch merges cleanly.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jan 27, 2015

Test build #26181 has finished for PR 4230 at commit 8092c36.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds the following public classes (experimental):
    • class DenseMatrix(

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/26181/
Test PASSed.

@andrewor14 andrewor14 changed the title [SPARK-5432] DriverSuite and SparkSubmitSuite should sc.stop() [SPARK-5437] Fix DriverSuite and SparkSubmitSuite timeout issues Jan 27, 2015
This ensures two things: (1) both suites use timeouts, and (2)
both suites actually terminate the respective processes if
timeouts occur.
@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jan 27, 2015

Test build #26188 has started for PR 4230 at commit f5c80fd.

  • This patch merges cleanly.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jan 27, 2015

Test build #26188 has finished for PR 4230 at commit f5c80fd.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/26188/
Test PASSed.

@@ -28,31 +28,30 @@ import org.apache.spark.util.Utils

class DriverSuite extends FunSuite with Timeouts {

// Regression test for SPARK-530: "Spark driver process doesn't exit after finishing"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since you're touching this, I kinda like the approach of adding the bug number to the test() call that I've seen in other places.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I just moved this line, but I can move it there too

@vanzin
Copy link
Contributor

vanzin commented Jan 28, 2015

LGTM.

@andrewor14
Copy link
Contributor Author

Merging into master

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 84b6ecd Jan 28, 2015
@andrewor14 andrewor14 deleted the fix-driver-suite branch January 28, 2015 20:57
Map("SPARK_TESTING" -> "1", "SPARK_HOME" -> sparkHome))
failAfter(60 seconds) { process.waitFor() }
// Ensure we still kill the process in case it timed out
process.destroy()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@andrewor14 shouldn't the destroy be in a finally block? Otherwise the process isn't destroyed if you hit the timeout.

(I know this was committed a while back, and the test is even ignored now -- but I was looking at some flaky tests and this just happened to catch my eye, so I was curious)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes, it would be good to fix it, though I don't think it will solve the flakiness that we currently encounter

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

by the way I'm addressing this at #6886

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants