Imran Rashid created SPARK-14560:
------------------------------------

             Summary: Cooperative Memory Management for Spillables
                 Key: SPARK-14560
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-14560
             Project: Spark
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: Spark Core
    Affects Versions: 1.6.1
            Reporter: Imran Rashid
            Assignee: Imran Rashid


SPARK-10432 introduced cooperative memory management for SQL operators that can 
spill; however, {{Spillable}} s used by the old RDD api still do not cooperate. 
 This can lead to memory starvation, in particular on a shuffle-to-shuffle 
stage, eventually resulting in errors like:

{noformat}
16/03/28 08:59:54 INFO memory.TaskMemoryManager: Memory used in task 3081
16/03/28 08:59:54 INFO memory.TaskMemoryManager: Acquired by 
org.apache.spark.shuffle.sort.ShuffleExternalSorter@69ab0291: 32.0 KB
16/03/28 08:59:54 INFO memory.TaskMemoryManager: 1317230346 bytes of memory 
were used by task 3081 but are not associated with specific consumers
16/03/28 08:59:54 INFO memory.TaskMemoryManager: 1317263114 bytes of memory are 
used for execution and 1710484 bytes of memory are used for storage
16/03/28 08:59:54 ERROR executor.Executor: Managed memory leak detected; size = 
1317230346 bytes, TID = 3081
16/03/28 08:59:54 ERROR executor.Executor: Exception in task 533.0 in stage 3.0 
(TID 3081)
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Unable to acquire 75 bytes of memory, got 0
        at 
org.apache.spark.memory.MemoryConsumer.allocatePage(MemoryConsumer.java:120)
        at 
org.apache.spark.shuffle.sort.ShuffleExternalSorter.acquireNewPageIfNecessary(ShuffleExternalSorter.java:346)
        at 
org.apache.spark.shuffle.sort.ShuffleExternalSorter.insertRecord(ShuffleExternalSorter.java:367)
        at 
org.apache.spark.shuffle.sort.UnsafeShuffleWriter.insertRecordIntoSorter(UnsafeShuffleWriter.java:237)
        at 
org.apache.spark.shuffle.sort.UnsafeShuffleWriter.write(UnsafeShuffleWriter.java:164)
        at 
org.apache.spark.scheduler.ShuffleMapTask.runTask(ShuffleMapTask.scala:73)
        at 
org.apache.spark.scheduler.ShuffleMapTask.runTask(ShuffleMapTask.scala:41)
        at org.apache.spark.scheduler.Task.run(Task.scala:89)
        at org.apache.spark.executor.Executor$TaskRunner.run(Executor.scala:214)
        at 
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145)
        at 
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
{noformat}

This can happen anytime the shuffle read side requires more memory than what is 
available for the task.  Since the shuffle-read side doubles its memory request 
each time, it can easily end up acquiring all of the available memory, even if 
it does not use it.  Eg., say that after the final spill, the shuffle-read side 
requires 10 MB more memory, and there is 15 MB of memory available.  But if it 
starts at 2 MB, it will double to 4, 8, and then request 16 MB of memory, and 
in fact get all available 15 MB.  Since the 15 MB of memory is sufficient, it 
will not spill, and will continue holding on to all available memory.  But this 
leaves *no* memory available for the shuffle-write side.  Since the 
shuffle-write side cannot request the shuffle-read side to free up memory, this 
leads to an OOM.

The simple solution is to make {{Spillable}} implement {{MemoryConsumer}} as 
well, so RDDs can benefit from the cooperative memory management introduced by 
SPARK-10342.

Note that an additional improvement would be for the shuffle-read side to 
simple release unused memory, without spilling, in case that would leave enough 
memory, and only spill if that was inadequate.  However that can come as a 
later improvement.

*Workaround*:  You can set 
{{spark.shuffle.spill.numElementsForceSpillThreshold=N}} to force spilling to 
occur every {{N}} elements, thus preventing the shuffle-read side from ever 
grabbing all of the available memory.  However, this requires careful tuning of 
{{N}} to specific workloads: too big, and you will still get an OOM; too small, 
and there will be so much spilling that performance will suffer drastically.  
Furthermore, this workaround uses an *undocumented* configuration with *no 
compatibility guarantees* for future versions of spark.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to