mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benjamin Mahler <bmah...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Request 57564: Changed DRFSorter's representation of inactive clients.
Date Fri, 17 Mar 2017 01:33:35 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/57564/#review169245
-----------------------------------------------------------



Hm.. this seems to introduce a performance regression in the case where there are many inactive
roles in the system? I assume it's difficult to avoid in the hierarchical case? Otherwise,
this looks good.


src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp
Line 110 (original), 112-113 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57564/#comment241592>

    Why does it need to be re-inserted? Is this just to be prudent in case 'active' has an
effect on the sorting? Or is it needed today? A comment would be great.



src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp
Line 126 (original), 129-130 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57564/#comment241593>

    Ditto here.



src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp
Lines 156 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57564/#comment241594>

    Why the additional scope here? Seems a bit inconsistent


- Benjamin Mahler


On March 13, 2017, 6:04 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/57564/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 13, 2017, 6:04 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Benjamin Mahler, and Michael Park.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> DRFSorter previously removed inactive clients from the `clients`
> collection, and then re-added clients when they were reactivated. This
> resulted in resetting the allocation count for the client, which is
> unfortunate. This scheme would also be more difficult to adapt to
> hierarchical sorting.
> 
> This commit changes DRFSorter to continue to store inactive clients in
> the `clients`; inactive clients are indicated by a new field in the
> `Client` struct, and are omitted from the return value of
> `DRFSorter::sort`.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp 76329220e1115c1de7810fb69b943c78c078be59

>   src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp ed54680cecb637931fc344fbcf8fd3b14cc24295

>   src/tests/sorter_tests.cpp ec0636beb936d46a253d19322f2157abe95156b6 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57564/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message