Thanks for the clarification Imran - that helped. I was mistakenly
assuming that these pools are removed via weak references, as the
ContextCleaner does for RDDs, broadcasts, and accumulators, etc. For
the time being, we'll just work around it, but I'll file a
nice-to-have improvement JIRA. Also, you're right, we see indeed these
warnings but they're usually hidden when running with ERROR or INFO
(due to overwhelming output) log levels.

Just to give the context: We use these scheduler pools in SystemML's
parallel for loop construct (parfor), which allows combining data- and
task-parallel computation. If the data fits into the remote memory
budget, the optimizer may decide to execute the entire loop as a
single spark job (with groups of iterations mapped to spark tasks). If
the data is too large and non-partitionable, the parfor loop is
executed as a multi-threaded operator in the driver and each worker
might spawn several data-parallel spark jobs in the context of the
worker's scheduler pool, for operations that don't fit into the

We decided to use these fair scheduler pools (w/ fair scheduling
across pools, FIFO per pool) instead of the default FIFO scheduler
because it gave us better and more robust performance back in the
Spark 1.x line. This was especially true for concurrent jobs over
shared input data (e.g., for hyper parameter tuning) and when the data
size exceeded aggregate memory. The only downside was that we had to
guard against scenarios where concurrently jobs would lazily pull a
shared RDD into cache because that lead to thread contention on the
executors' block managers and spurious replicated in-memory


On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 8:08 AM, Imran Rashid <> wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
> This doeesn't look possible now.  It may be worth filing an improvement jira
> for.
> But I'm trying to understand what you're trying to do a little better.  So
> you intentionally have each thread create a new unique pool when its submits
> a job?  So that pool will just get the default pool configuration, and you
> will see lots of these messages in your logs?
> What is the use case for creating pools this way?
> Also if I understand correctly, it doesn't even matter if the thread dies --
> that pool will still stay around, as the rootPool will retain a reference to
> its (the pools aren't really actually tied to specific threads).
> Imran
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Matthias Boehm <> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> for concurrent Spark jobs spawned from the driver, we use Spark's fair
>> scheduler pools, which are set and unset in a thread-local manner by
>> each worker thread. Typically (for rather long jobs), this works very
>> well. Unfortunately, in an application with lots of very short
>> parallel sections, we see 1000s of these pools remaining in the Spark
>> UI, which indicates some kind of leak. Each worker cleans up its local
>> property by setting it to null, but not all pools are properly
>> removed. I've checked and reproduced this behavior with Spark 2.1-2.3.
>> Now my question: Is there a way to explicitly remove these pools,
>> either globally, or locally while the thread is still alive?
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe e-mail:

To unsubscribe e-mail:

Reply via email to