Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[SPARK-20817][core] Fix to return "Unknown processor" on ppc and 390 platforms by Benchmark.getProcessorName() - #18042
[SPARK-20817][core] Fix to return "Unknown processor" on ppc and 390 platforms by Benchmark.getProcessorName() #18042kiszk wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
SparkQA
commented
May 20, 2017
Test build #77119 has finished for PR 18042 at commit
|
kiszk
commented
May 24, 2017
ping @rxin |
srowen
commented
May 25, 2017
Does it matter that the format of the output isn't quite in the same format - is it just used for display? |
kiszk
commented
May 25, 2017
It is due to differences among CPU architectures. Here are original outputs of POWER S390 |
srowen
commented
May 25, 2017
Yeah I get that, but does it cause a problem? it won't if it's just for display, but that's what I'm asking. |
rxin
commented
May 25, 2017
Does this really matter? I'd rather not complicate the actual code for it to display properly in some niche hardware that very few people use. |
jiangxb1987
commented
Jun 22, 2017
srowen
commented
Jun 22, 2017
@kiszk unless you want to make the output of this function consistent, I'd say I'm not clear that this is a good change |
kiszk
commented
Jun 22, 2017
@srowen What do you mean "consistent"? Is it good to use a consistent format "processor identification information @ clock"? Any other great ideas are appreciated. |
srowen
commented
Jun 22, 2017
For example, S390 appears to output "cpu, machine", not "cpu @ clock". If this is actually used by code somewhere it needs to be consistent right? if it's just for display, it's a nice-to-have, but still, seems nicer to output similar strings? |
kiszk
commented
Jun 23, 2017
I see. I will try to use "cpu @ clock" format. |
rxin
commented
Jun 23, 2017
Please let's not waste more time here. I don't think the gain is worth the effort required (or even the discussions here). |
## What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR proposes to close stale PRs, mostly the same instances with apache#18017 I believe the author in apache#14807 removed his account. Closesapache#7075Closesapache#8927Closesapache#9202Closesapache#9366Closesapache#10861Closesapache#11420Closesapache#12356Closesapache#13028Closesapache#13506Closesapache#14191Closesapache#14198Closesapache#14330Closesapache#14807Closesapache#15839Closesapache#16225Closesapache#16685Closesapache#16692Closesapache#16995Closesapache#17181Closesapache#17211Closesapache#17235Closesapache#17237Closesapache#17248Closesapache#17341Closesapache#17708Closesapache#17716Closesapache#17721Closesapache#17937 Added: Closesapache#14739Closesapache#17139Closesapache#17445Closesapache#18042Closesapache#18359 Added: Closesapache#16450Closesapache#16525Closesapache#17738 Added: Closesapache#16458Closesapache#16508Closesapache#17714 Added: Closesapache#17830Closesapache#14742 ## How was this patch tested? N/A Author: hyukjinkwon <gurwls223@gmail.com> Closesapache#18417 from HyukjinKwon/close-stale-pr.
## What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR proposes to close stale PRs, mostly the same instances with apache#18017 I believe the author in apache#14807 removed his account. Closesapache#7075Closesapache#8927Closesapache#9202Closesapache#9366Closesapache#10861Closesapache#11420Closesapache#12356Closesapache#13028Closesapache#13506Closesapache#14191Closesapache#14198Closesapache#14330Closesapache#14807Closesapache#15839Closesapache#16225Closesapache#16685Closesapache#16692Closesapache#16995Closesapache#17181Closesapache#17211Closesapache#17235Closesapache#17237Closesapache#17248Closesapache#17341Closesapache#17708Closesapache#17716Closesapache#17721Closesapache#17937 Added: Closesapache#14739Closesapache#17139Closesapache#17445Closesapache#18042Closesapache#18359 Added: Closesapache#16450Closesapache#16525Closesapache#17738 Added: Closesapache#16458Closesapache#16508Closesapache#17714 Added: Closesapache#17830Closesapache#14742 ## How was this patch tested? N/A Author: hyukjinkwon <gurwls223@gmail.com> Closesapache#18417 from HyukjinKwon/close-stale-pr.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR fixes that
Benchmark.getProcessorName()returnsUnknown processorstring on ppc and 390 Linux platforms.After applying this PR,
Benchmark.getProcessorName()on two Linux platforms return the following strings:ppc64le:
s390x:
How was this patch tested?
Manually tested on ppc64le and s390x Linux platforms