vrozov commented on code in PR #50594:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/50594#discussion_r2065348300
##########
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:
> sleep has a slightly higher overhead than parking/unparking a thread.
I am not convinced that `sleep()` has higher overhead and that it is
important in this case. `sleep()` in this case serves two goals: wait for the
interrupt and clear interrupt. `await()` will do exactly the same and it will
exit on `InterruptedException` and not on the condition as it's design pattern
suggests. While both `sleep()` and `await()` on `Condition` would provide
required functionality, using `boolean` and `sleep()` better match existing
implementation of `UninterruptibleThread`.
--
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
