Ngone51 opened a new pull request, #38876:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/38876
<!--
Thanks for sending a pull request! Here are some tips for you:
1. If this is your first time, please read our contributor guidelines:
https://spark.apache.org/contributing.html
2. Ensure you have added or run the appropriate tests for your PR:
https://spark.apache.org/developer-tools.html
3. If the PR is unfinished, add '[WIP]' in your PR title, e.g.,
'[WIP][SPARK-XXXX] Your PR title ...'.
4. Be sure to keep the PR description updated to reflect all changes.
5. Please write your PR title to summarize what this PR proposes.
6. If possible, provide a concise example to reproduce the issue for a
faster review.
7. If you want to add a new configuration, please read the guideline first
for naming configurations in
'core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/internal/config/ConfigEntry.scala'.
8. If you want to add or modify an error type or message, please read the
guideline first in
'core/src/main/resources/error/README.md'.
-->
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR majorly proposes to reject the block manager re-registration if the
executor has been already considered lost/dead from the scheduler backend.
Along with the major proposal, this PR also includes a few other changes:
* Only post `SparkListenerBlockManagerAdded` event when the registration
succeeds
* Return an "invalid" executor id when the re-registration fails
* Do not report all blocks when the re-registration fails
### Why are the changes needed?
<!--
Please clarify why the changes are needed. For instance,
1. If you propose a new API, clarify the use case for a new API.
2. If you fix a bug, you can clarify why it is a bug.
-->
BlockManager re-registration from dead or terminating executor has led to
some known issues, e.g., false-active executor shows up in UP (SPARK-35011),
[block fetching to the dead
executor](https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/32114#issuecomment-899979045).
And since there's no re-registration from the executor itself, it's meaningless
to have BlockManager re-registration when the executor is already lost.
Regarding the corner case where the re-registration event comes earlier
before the lost executor is actually removed from the scheduler backend, I
think it is not possible. Because re-registration will only be required when
the BlockManager doesn't see the block manager in `blockManagerInfo`. And the
block manager will only be removed from `blockManagerInfo` whether when the
executor is already know lost or removed by the driver proactively. So the
executor should always be removed from the scheduler backend first before the
re-registration event comes.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
<!--
Note that it means *any* user-facing change including all aspects such as
the documentation fix.
If yes, please clarify the previous behavior and the change this PR proposes
- provide the console output, description and/or an example to show the
behavior difference if possible.
If possible, please also clarify if this is a user-facing change compared to
the released Spark versions or within the unreleased branches such as master.
If no, write 'No'.
-->
No
### How was this patch tested?
<!--
If tests were added, say they were added here. Please make sure to add some
test cases that check the changes thoroughly including negative and positive
cases if possible.
If it was tested in a way different from regular unit tests, please clarify
how you tested step by step, ideally copy and paste-able, so that other
reviewers can test and check, and descendants can verify in the future.
If tests were not added, please describe why they were not added and/or why
it was difficult to add.
If benchmark tests were added, please run the benchmarks in GitHub Actions
for the consistent environment, and the instructions could accord to:
https://spark.apache.org/developer-tools.html#github-workflow-benchmarks.
-->
Unit test
--
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
