> On Aug. 11, 2016, 10:16 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
> > Hi Klaus, could you explain what the motivation is for this patch?
> > Currently, your analysis seems correct that reserved resources are always non-revocable.
> > However, the current code seems that it'll be more future-proof.
> > That is, even after reserved resources becomes revocable it would remain correct.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm curiuos as to why this patch is being suggested. Thanks!
>
> Klaus Ma wrote:
> Try to improve the performance by avoid unnecessary operation :).
That would've been my guess. Are there any numbers to support the patch?
- Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45081/#review145489
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2016, 4:01 a.m., Klaus Ma wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45081/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 19, 2016, 4:01 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Joris Van Remoortere, and Michael Park.
>
>
> Bugs: MESOS-4988
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4988
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Allocator will only allocate non-revocable resources to satify quota. As the reserved
resources can not be revocable, it's not necessary to call `nonRevocable()` for reserved resources.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp 70291075c00a9a557529c2562dedcfc6c6c3ec32
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45081/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Klaus Ma
>
>
|