Skip to content

Conversation

Ngone51
Copy link
Member

@Ngone51 Ngone51 commented Sep 23, 2021

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This's a follow-up of #34043. This PR proposes to only handle shuffle blocks in the separate thread pool and leave other blocks the same behavior as it is.

Why are the changes needed?

To avoid any potential overhead.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

Pass existing tests.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the CORE label Sep 23, 2021
@Ngone51
Copy link
Member Author

Ngone51 commented Sep 23, 2021

cc @f-thiele @mridulm @gengliangwang

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Sep 23, 2021

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/48044/

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Sep 23, 2021

Kubernetes integration test status failure
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/48044/

@gengliangwang
Copy link
Member

gengliangwang commented Sep 23, 2021

Merging to master/3.2/3.1

gengliangwang pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2021
…thread pool

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This's a follow-up of #34043. This PR proposes to only handle shuffle blocks in the separate thread pool and leave other blocks the same behavior as it is.

### Why are the changes needed?

To avoid any potential overhead.

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

No.

### How was this patch tested?

Pass existing tests.

Closes #34076 from Ngone51/spark-36782-follow-up.

Authored-by: yi.wu <yi.wu@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Gengliang Wang <gengliang@apache.org>
(cherry picked from commit 9d8ac7c)
Signed-off-by: Gengliang Wang <gengliang@apache.org>
gengliangwang pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2021
…thread pool

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This's a follow-up of #34043. This PR proposes to only handle shuffle blocks in the separate thread pool and leave other blocks the same behavior as it is.

### Why are the changes needed?

To avoid any potential overhead.

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

No.

### How was this patch tested?

Pass existing tests.

Closes #34076 from Ngone51/spark-36782-follow-up.

Authored-by: yi.wu <yi.wu@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Gengliang Wang <gengliang@apache.org>
(cherry picked from commit 9d8ac7c)
Signed-off-by: Gengliang Wang <gengliang@apache.org>
@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Sep 23, 2021

Test build #143535 has finished for PR 34076 at commit dd32bc2.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@mridulm
Copy link
Contributor

mridulm commented Sep 23, 2021

Late LGTM, thanks for fixing this @Ngone51 !

fishcus pushed a commit to fishcus/spark that referenced this pull request Jan 12, 2022
…thread pool

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This's a follow-up of apache#34043. This PR proposes to only handle shuffle blocks in the separate thread pool and leave other blocks the same behavior as it is.

### Why are the changes needed?

To avoid any potential overhead.

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

No.

### How was this patch tested?

Pass existing tests.

Closes apache#34076 from Ngone51/spark-36782-follow-up.

Authored-by: yi.wu <yi.wu@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Gengliang Wang <gengliang@apache.org>
(cherry picked from commit 9d8ac7c)
Signed-off-by: Gengliang Wang <gengliang@apache.org>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants