Repository navigation
Conversation
shuffleKey depends only on immutable inputs (appUniqueId, shuffleId), so compute it once before the polling loop instead of once per pending worker per 50 ms tick. Pure refactor, no behavior change.
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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?
Move
Utils.makeShuffleKey(appUniqueId, shuffleId)out of the innerwhileloop inCommitHandler.doParallelCommitFiles, so it is computed once before the polling loop instead of once per pending worker per 50 ms tick.Why are the changes needed?
appUniqueId(constructor parameter) andshuffleId(method parameter) are both immutable, soshuffleKeyis a loop invariant. The current code also evaluates it while the commit future is still pending and no log line is emitted. Hoisting it matches the pattern already used inCommitHandler.checkDataLostandLifecycleManager.destroySlotsWithRetry.Pure refactor: no behavior change.
Does this PR resolve a correctness bug?
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
How was this patch tested?
build/sbt "celeborn-client/compile"build/mvn spotless:check -pl clientThe change is a mechanical move of one line. Existing unit tests do not exercise the commit-files polling loop.