forked from apache/arrow
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
[Rust] [Parquet] LargeListArray support and why I think the tests are still failing #6
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
Merged
nevi-me
merged 3 commits into
nevi-me:ARROW-7842-cherry
from
integer32llc:ARROW-7842-cherry
Oct 17, 2020
Merged
[Rust] [Parquet] LargeListArray support and why I think the tests are still failing #6
nevi-me
merged 3 commits into
nevi-me:ARROW-7842-cherry
from
integer32llc:ARROW-7842-cherry
Oct 17, 2020
Conversation
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
ca9df67 to
37028e3
Compare
Author
|
Just saw that you rebased your branch so I rebased on your branch :) |
Owner
|
Thanks Carol 🙏🏾 I'm merging this, then I'll look at the CI failures |
nevi-me
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2020
This is a port of apache#6770 to the parquet-writer branch. We'll have more of a chance to test this reader, and ensure that we can roundtrip on list types. [Rust] [Parquet] LargeListArray support and why I think the tests are still failing (#6) * Support reading LargeListArrays by making ListArrayReader generic over OffsetSize * Update comment to match the actual values in this test; probably copy-paste * Document why I think the test setup isn't quite right disable list writer tests They're failing because of incorrect def/rep. Will be addressed separately
nevi-me
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2021
From a deadlocked run... ``` #0 0x00007f8a5d48dccd in __lll_lock_wait () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 #1 0x00007f8a5d486f05 in pthread_mutex_lock () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 #2 0x00007f8a566e7e89 in arrow::internal::FnOnce<void ()>::FnImpl<arrow::Future<Aws::Utils::Outcome<Aws::S3::Model::ListObjectsV2Result, Aws::S3::S3Error> >::Callback<arrow::fs::(anonymous namespace)::TreeWalker::ListObjectsV2Handler> >::invoke() () from /arrow/r/check/arrow.Rcheck/arrow/libs/arrow.so #3 0x00007f8a5650efa0 in arrow::FutureImpl::AddCallback(arrow::internal::FnOnce<void ()>) () from /arrow/r/check/arrow.Rcheck/arrow/libs/arrow.so #4 0x00007f8a566e67a9 in arrow::fs::(anonymous namespace)::TreeWalker::ListObjectsV2Handler::SpawnListObjectsV2() () from /arrow/r/check/arrow.Rcheck/arrow/libs/arrow.so #5 0x00007f8a566e723f in arrow::fs::(anonymous namespace)::TreeWalker::WalkChild(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, int) () from /arrow/r/check/arrow.Rcheck/arrow/libs/arrow.so #6 0x00007f8a566e827d in arrow::internal::FnOnce<void ()>::FnImpl<arrow::Future<Aws::Utils::Outcome<Aws::S3::Model::ListObjectsV2Result, Aws::S3::S3Error> >::Callback<arrow::fs::(anonymous namespace)::TreeWalker::ListObjectsV2Handler> >::invoke() () from /arrow/r/check/arrow.Rcheck/arrow/libs/arrow.so #7 0x00007f8a5650efa0 in arrow::FutureImpl::AddCallback(arrow::internal::FnOnce<void ()>) () from /arrow/r/check/arrow.Rcheck/arrow/libs/arrow.so #8 0x00007f8a566e67a9 in arrow::fs::(anonymous namespace)::TreeWalker::ListObjectsV2Handler::SpawnListObjectsV2() () from /arrow/r/check/arrow.Rcheck/arrow/libs/arrow.so #9 0x00007f8a566e723f in arrow::fs::(anonymous namespace)::TreeWalker::WalkChild(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, int) () from /arrow/r/check/arrow.Rcheck/arrow/libs/arrow.so apache#10 0x00007f8a566e74b1 in arrow::fs::(anonymous namespace)::TreeWalker::DoWalk() () from /arrow/r/check/arrow.Rcheck/arrow/libs/arrow.so ``` The callback `ListObjectsV2Handler` is being called recursively and the mutex is non-reentrant thus deadlock. To fix it I got rid of the mutex on `TreeWalker` by using `arrow::util::internal::TaskGroup` instead of manually tracking the #/status of in-flight requests. Closes apache#9842 from westonpace/bugfix/arrow-12040 Lead-authored-by: Weston Pace <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]>
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.
Hi, I decided to open the PR over here rather than on the apache/arrow repo since I'm making changes to your branch...
I did rebase this on the upstream rust-parquet-arrow-writer branch though, so there's some noise in this PR's diff :-/I added support for LargeListArrays in the ListArrayReader, and I added a test in array_reader and it's passing!
However, the roundtrip tests are still failing, and my current suspicion is that something isn't quite right with the test setup, because the null count isn't what I expected it to be. I've documented with comments and assertions (some of which pass and some of which fail) my current reasoning-- I have to go right now but I'll keep investigating later. If you notice something that's obvious to you about the test setup, please let me know!