spark-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From GitBox <...@apache.org>
Subject [GitHub] [spark] tgravescs opened a new pull request #27773: [SPARK-29154][CORE] Update Spark scheduler for stage level scheduling
Date Tue, 03 Mar 2020 14:30:16 GMT
tgravescs opened a new pull request #27773: [SPARK-29154][CORE] Update Spark scheduler for
stage level scheduling
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/27773
 
 
   <!--
   Thanks for sending a pull request!  Here are some tips for you:
     1. If this is your first time, please read our contributor guidelines: https://spark.apache.org/contributing.html
     2. Ensure you have added or run the appropriate tests for your PR: https://spark.apache.org/developer-tools.html
     3. If the PR is unfinished, add '[WIP]' in your PR title, e.g., '[WIP][SPARK-XXXX] Your
PR title ...'.
     4. Be sure to keep the PR description updated to reflect all changes.
     5. Please write your PR title to summarize what this PR proposes.
     6. If possible, provide a concise example to reproduce the issue for a faster review.
     7. If you want to add a new configuration, please read the guideline first for naming
configurations in
        'core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/internal/config/ConfigEntry.scala'.
   -->
   
   ### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
   <!--
   Please clarify what changes you are proposing. The purpose of this section is to outline
the changes and how this PR fixes the issue. 
   If possible, please consider writing useful notes for better and faster reviews in your
PR. See the examples below.
     1. If you refactor some codes with changing classes, showing the class hierarchy will
help reviewers.
     2. If you fix some SQL features, you can provide some references of other DBMSes.
     3. If there is design documentation, please add the link.
     4. If there is a discussion in the mailing list, please add the link.
   -->
   
   This is the core scheduler changes to support Stage level scheduling. 
   
   The main changes here include modification to the DAGScheduler to look at the ResourceProfiles
associated with an RDD and have those applied inside the scheduler.
   Currently if multiple RDD's in a stage have conflicting ResourceProfiles we throw an error.
logic to allow this will happen in SPARK-29153. I added the interfaces to RDD to add and get
the REsourceProfile so that I could add unit tests for the scheduler. These are marked as
private for now until we finish the feature and will be exposed in SPARK-29150. If you think
this is confusing I can remove those and remove the tests and add them back later.
   I modified the task scheduler to make sure to only schedule on executor that exactly match
the resource profile. It will then check those executors to make sure the current resources
meet the task needs before assigning it.  In here I changed the way we do the custom resource
assignment. 
   Other changes here include having the cpus per task passed around so that we can properly
account for them. Previously we just used the one global config, but now it can change based
on the ResourceProfile.
   I removed the exceptions that require the cores to be the limiting resource. With this
change all the places I found that used executor cores /task cpus as slots has been updated
to use the ResourceProfile logic and look to see what resource is limiting.
   
   ### Why are the changes needed?
   <!--
   Please clarify why the changes are needed. For instance,
     1. If you propose a new API, clarify the use case for a new API.
     2. If you fix a bug, you can clarify why it is a bug.
   -->
   Stage level sheduling feature
   
   ### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
   <!--
   If yes, please clarify the previous behavior and the change this PR proposes - provide
the console output, description and/or an example to show the behavior difference if possible.
   If no, write 'No'.
   -->
   No
   
   ### How was this patch tested?
   <!--
   If tests were added, say they were added here. Please make sure to add some test cases
that check the changes thoroughly including negative and positive cases if possible.
   If it was tested in a way different from regular unit tests, please clarify how you tested
step by step, ideally copy and paste-able, so that other reviewers can test and check, and
descendants can verify in the future.
   If tests were not added, please describe why they were not added and/or why it was difficult
to add.
   -->
   
   unit tests and lots of manual testing

----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-help@spark.apache.org


Mime
View raw message