vrozov commented on code in PR #50594:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/50594#discussion_r2064296427
##########
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:
@mridulm
>The concern is not just that sleep is called, but the cost of sleep - as
opposed to using some sort of conditioned wait.
I don't see a big difference between interrupting sleep or waiting on a
condition or any other thread synchronization. In case of `sleep()` we don't
expect it to finish normally and in the most common case `sleep()` won't be
even called and if it is called, it will exit on `InterruptedException` almost
immediately.
--
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
