[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3212?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jonathan Coveney updated PIG-3212:
----------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 0.11.1
> Race Conditions in POSort and (Internal)SortedBag during Proactive Spill.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PIG-3212
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3212
> Project: Pig
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 0.11
> Reporter: Kai Londenberg
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 0.12, 0.11.1
>
>
> The following bug exists in the latest release of Pig 0.11.0
> While running some large jobs involving groups and sorts like these:
> {code}
> events_by_user = GROUP events BY user_id;
> sorted_events_by_user = FOREACH events_by_user {
> A = ORDER events BY ts, split_idx, line_num;
> GENERATE group, A;
> }
> {code}
> I got a pretty strange behaviour: While this worked on small datasets, if I
> ran it on large datasets, the results were sometimes not sorted perfectly.
> So after a long debugging session, I tracked it down to at least one race
> condition:
> The following partial stack trace shows how a proactive spill gets triggered
> on an InternalSortedBag. A spill in turn triggers a sort of that
> InternalSortedBag.
> {code}
> at
> org.apache.pig.data.SortedSpillBag.proactive_spill(SortedSpillBag.java:83)
> at
> org.apache.pig.data.InternalSortedBag.spill(InternalSortedBag.java:455)
> at
> org.apache.pig.impl.util.SpillableMemoryManager.handleNotification(SpillableMemoryManager.java:243)
> at
> sun.management.NotificationEmitterSupport.sendNotification(NotificationEmitterSupport.java:138)
> at sun.management.MemoryImpl.createNotification(MemoryImpl.java:171)
> at
> sun.management.MemoryPoolImpl$PoolSensor.triggerAction(MemoryPoolImpl.java:272)
> at sun.management.Sensor.trigger(Sensor.java:120)
> {code}
> At the same time, the same InternalSortedBag might be sorted or accessed
> within a POSort Operation. For example using the following Code path (line
> numbers might be off, I had to add debug statements to diagnose this)
> {code}
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.physicalLayer.relationalOperators.POSort.getNext(POSort.java:346)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.physicalLayer.PhysicalOperator.getNext(PhysicalOperator.java:492)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.physicalLayer.expressionOperators.POProject.processInputBag(POProject.java:582)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.physicalLayer.expressionOperators.PORelationToExprProject.getNext(PORelationToExprProject.java:107)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.physicalLayer.PhysicalOperator.getNext(PhysicalOperator.java:394)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.physicalLayer.relationalOperators.POForEach.processPlan(POForEach.java:372)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.physicalLayer.relationalOperators.POForEach.getNext(POForEach.java:297)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.physicalLayer.PhysicalOperator.processInput(PhysicalOperator.java:368)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.physicalLayer.relationalOperators.POSplit.getNext(POSplit.java:214)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.mapReduceLayer.PigGenericMapReduce$Reduce.runPipeline(PigGenericMapReduce.java:465)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.mapReduceLayer.PigGenericMapReduce$Reduce.processOnePackageOutput(PigGenericMapReduce.java:433)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.mapReduceLayer.PigGenericMapReduce$Reduce.reduce(PigGenericMapReduce.java:413)
> at
> org.apache.pig.backend.hadoop.executionengine.mapReduceLayer.PigGenericMapReduce$Reduce.reduce(PigGenericMapReduce.java:257)
> at org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.Reducer.run(Reducer.java:176)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.mapred.ReduceTask.runNewReducer(ReduceTask.java:566)
> at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.ReduceTask.run(ReduceTask.java:408)
> at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.Child.main(Child.java:170)
> {code}
> The key here is: Both operations try to compare and modify elements of the
> SortedBag simultaneously. This leads to all kinds of problems, most notably
> incorrectly sorted data.
> POSort.SortComparator that's passed as a Comparison function to
> (Internal)SortedBag is not thread safe, since it works by attaching single
> input tuples to PhysicalOperator's - these Operators in turn are part of the
> POSort.sortPlans and are re-used among each thread accessing the
> (Internal)SortedBag.
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
