mridulm commented on code in PR #50594:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/50594#discussion_r2059722561
##########
core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/util/UninterruptibleThread.scala:
##########
@@ -69,10 +75,22 @@ private[spark] class UninterruptibleThread(
}
uninterruptibleLock.synchronized {
+ uninterruptible = true
+ }
+
+ while (uninterruptibleLock.synchronized {
Review Comment:
Let us move this into a private method, instead of inlining it within
`while`.
Same for `if` in `interrupt`
##########
core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/util/UninterruptibleThread.scala:
##########
@@ -69,10 +75,22 @@ private[spark] class UninterruptibleThread(
}
uninterruptibleLock.synchronized {
+ uninterruptible = true
+ }
+
+ while (uninterruptibleLock.synchronized {
// Clear the interrupted status if it's set.
shouldInterruptThread = Thread.interrupted() || shouldInterruptThread
- uninterruptible = true
+ // wait for super.interrupt() to be called
+ !shouldInterruptThread && awaitInterruptThread }) {
+ try {
+ Thread.sleep(100)
Review Comment:
I agree, there is a potential for performance impact (though preventing
deadlock trumps that ofcourse !)
The concern is not just that sleep is called, but the cost of sleep - as
opposed to using some sort of conditioned wait.
I have not thought through how we can formulate it though (if at all
possible).
--
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: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
