-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[SPARK-38194] Followup: Fix k8s memory overhead passing to executor pods #35901
[SPARK-38194] Followup: Fix k8s memory overhead passing to executor pods #35901
Conversation
@tgravescs is this what you were thinking? |
...rnetes/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/deploy/k8s/features/BasicDriverFeatureStep.scala
Show resolved
Hide resolved
ddd276e
to
16460c4
Compare
Think I need to fix the test for this too |
merged to master, thanks @Kimahriman |
Thanks for your fix, late LGTM |
// The memory overhead factor to use. If the user has not set it, then use a different | ||
// value for non-JVM apps. This value is propagated to executors. | ||
private val overheadFactor = | ||
// The default memory overhead factor to use, derived from the deprecated |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nice note!
FYI, master CI passed in K8S IT, We might want to backport this with squash previous revert patch to 3.3 if needed. |
@dongjoon-hyun do you have any concerns with pulling into 3.3 at this point? |
No, it is a legitimate backporting request, @tgravescs . To @Kimahriman , as @Yikun mentioned, could you make a single healthy backporting PR to |
Yeah I can do that. Do I need to combine the commits myself or do you just squash everything when you merge anyway? |
Apache Spark merge-script will squash for you. You can make a PR with all commits. |
That's what I thought, just wanted to make sure! |
Follow up to apache#35504 to fix k8s memory overhead handling. apache#35504 introduced a bug only caught by the K8S integration tests. Fix back to old behavior. See if IT passes Closes apache#35901 from Kimahriman/k8s-memory-overhead-executors. Authored-by: Adam Binford <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Graves <[email protected]>
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Follow up to #35504 to fix k8s memory overhead handling.
Why are the changes needed?
#35504 introduced a bug only caught by the K8S integration tests.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Fix back to old behavior.
How was this patch tested?
See if IT passes