Victsm commented on a change in pull request #29855:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/29855#discussion_r500519396



##########
File path: 
common/network-common/src/main/java/org/apache/spark/network/server/TransportRequestHandler.java
##########
@@ -181,6 +182,17 @@ public void onFailure(Throwable e) {
   private void processStreamUpload(final UploadStream req) {
     assert (req.body() == null);
     try {
+      // Retain the original metadata buffer, since it will be used during the 
invocation of
+      // this method. Will be released later.
+      req.meta.retain();
+      // Make a copy of the original metadata buffer. In benchmark, we noticed 
that
+      // we cannot respond the original metadata buffer back to the client, 
otherwise
+      // in cases where multiple concurrent shuffles are present, a wrong 
metadata might
+      // be sent back to client. This is related to the eager release of the 
metadata buffer,
+      // i.e., we always release the original buffer by the time the 
invocation of this
+      // method ends, instead of by the time we respond it to the client. This 
is necessary,
+      // otherwise we start seeing memory issues very quickly in benchmarks.
+      ByteBuffer meta = cloneBuffer(req.meta.nioByteBuffer());

Review comment:
       @jiangxb1987 what do you think about the need of creating one callback 
object per block?
   On the fetch side, `ChunkCallback` is reused, and only `DownloadCallback` is 
created one per block.
   However, `DownloadCallback` is only used with large blocks, so it won't be 
created for every block.




----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]



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

Reply via email to