[SPARK-21181] Release byteBuffers to suppress netty error messages #18392
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
srowen
approved these changes
Jun 22, 2017
vanzin
reviewed
Jun 22, 2017
| return encodedByteBuf.toString(StandardCharsets.UTF_8); | ||
| } finally { | ||
| // The release is called to suppress the memory leak error messages raised by netty. | ||
| byteBuf.release(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should add null checks here. Just in case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can be defensive, but the possibility of encountering an exception here seems rare. The only benefit for adding the check would be to not swallow an exception raised earlier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, it also makes the code more correct. Source analysis tools have a tendency to flag this kind of stuff. I don't see what's the problem with adding the checks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just wanted a perspective :-)
|
Test build #78462 has finished for PR 18392 at commit
|
|
BTW should this go on master first? Or is this not a problem on master for some reason? (If this doesn't happen on master nor 2.2, please state so in the bug, otherwise, please open a PR against master.) |
|
Test build #78471 has finished for PR 18392 at commit
|
|
I haven't got a chance yet to test it against 2.2 and the master. I will update it after running against both the builds. |
|
Oops yeah @dhruve you need to open vs master and this can be closed. |
asfgit
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2017
## What changes were proposed in this pull request? We are explicitly calling release on the byteBuf's used to encode the string to Base64 to suppress the memory leak error message reported by netty. This is to make it less confusing for the user. ### Changes proposed in this fix By explicitly invoking release on the byteBuf's we are decrement the internal reference counts for the wrappedByteBuf's. Now, when the GC kicks in, these would be reclaimed as before, just that netty wouldn't report any memory leak error messages as the internal ref. counts are now 0. ## How was this patch tested? Ran a few spark-applications and examined the logs. The error message no longer appears. Original PR was opened against branch-2.1 => #18392 Author: Dhruve Ashar <dhruveashar@gmail.com> Closes #18407 from dhruve/master. (cherry picked from commit 1ebe7ff) Signed-off-by: Marcelo Vanzin <vanzin@cloudera.com>
asfgit
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2017
## What changes were proposed in this pull request? We are explicitly calling release on the byteBuf's used to encode the string to Base64 to suppress the memory leak error message reported by netty. This is to make it less confusing for the user. ### Changes proposed in this fix By explicitly invoking release on the byteBuf's we are decrement the internal reference counts for the wrappedByteBuf's. Now, when the GC kicks in, these would be reclaimed as before, just that netty wouldn't report any memory leak error messages as the internal ref. counts are now 0. ## How was this patch tested? Ran a few spark-applications and examined the logs. The error message no longer appears. Original PR was opened against branch-2.1 => #18392 Author: Dhruve Ashar <dhruveashar@gmail.com> Closes #18407 from dhruve/master. (cherry picked from commit 1ebe7ff) Signed-off-by: Marcelo Vanzin <vanzin@cloudera.com>
asfgit
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2017
## What changes were proposed in this pull request? We are explicitly calling release on the byteBuf's used to encode the string to Base64 to suppress the memory leak error message reported by netty. This is to make it less confusing for the user. ### Changes proposed in this fix By explicitly invoking release on the byteBuf's we are decrement the internal reference counts for the wrappedByteBuf's. Now, when the GC kicks in, these would be reclaimed as before, just that netty wouldn't report any memory leak error messages as the internal ref. counts are now 0. ## How was this patch tested? Ran a few spark-applications and examined the logs. The error message no longer appears. Original PR was opened against branch-2.1 => #18392 Author: Dhruve Ashar <dhruveashar@gmail.com> Closes #18407 from dhruve/master.
robert3005
pushed a commit
to palantir/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2017
## What changes were proposed in this pull request? We are explicitly calling release on the byteBuf's used to encode the string to Base64 to suppress the memory leak error message reported by netty. This is to make it less confusing for the user. ### Changes proposed in this fix By explicitly invoking release on the byteBuf's we are decrement the internal reference counts for the wrappedByteBuf's. Now, when the GC kicks in, these would be reclaimed as before, just that netty wouldn't report any memory leak error messages as the internal ref. counts are now 0. ## How was this patch tested? Ran a few spark-applications and examined the logs. The error message no longer appears. Original PR was opened against branch-2.1 => apache#18392 Author: Dhruve Ashar <dhruveashar@gmail.com> Closes apache#18407 from dhruve/master.
yoonlee95
pushed a commit
to yoonlee95/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 17, 2017
## What changes were proposed in this pull request? We are explicitly calling release on the byteBuf's used to encode the string to Base64 to suppress the memory leak error message reported by netty. This is to make it less confusing for the user. ### Changes proposed in this fix By explicitly invoking release on the byteBuf's we are decrement the internal reference counts for the wrappedByteBuf's. Now, when the GC kicks in, these would be reclaimed as before, just that netty wouldn't report any memory leak error messages as the internal ref. counts are now 0. ## How was this patch tested? Ran a few spark-applications and examined the logs. The error message no longer appears. Original PR was opened against branch-2.1 => apache#18392 Author: Dhruve Ashar <dhruveashar@gmail.com> Closes apache#18407 from dhruve/master.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
We are explicitly calling release on the byteBuf's used to encode the string to Base64 to suppress the memory leak error message reported by netty. This is to make it less confusing for the user.
changes proposed in this fix
By explicitly invoking release on the byteBuf's we are decrement the internal reference counts for the wrappedByteBuf's. Now, when the GC kicks in, these would be reclaimed as before, just that netty wouldn't report any memory leak error messages as the internal ref. counts are now 0.
How was this patch tested?
Ran a few spark-applications and examined the logs. The error message no longer appears.