mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Neil Conway <neil.con...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 57935: Recalculate shares only when total scalar quantities have changed.
Date Fri, 02 Jun 2017 16:26:29 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/#review176687
-----------------------------------------------------------




src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp
Lines 346 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/#comment250116>

    I think `totalChanged` would be a more idiomatic variable name.



src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp
Lines 347 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/#comment250122>

    Why is `flatten` necessary here? We are already comparing two scalar quantities, so is
the flatten required?



src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp
Lines 358 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/#comment250123>

    I'd move the definition/calculation of `isTotalChanged` down here, to where it is used.



src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp
Line 309 (original), 304 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/#comment250127>

    



src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp
Lines 307 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/#comment250124>

    



src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp
Lines 307 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/#comment250125>

    



src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp
Lines 307 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/#comment250126>

    The return value of `update` depends only on the parameters `oldAllocation` and `newAllocation`,
right? In which case, the way this is written seems confusing to me (e.g., it implies it would
be possible for `dirty` to remain false when we start at a leaf node, but then for `dirty`
to be true for an ancestor node).
    
    An improvement would be to `CHECK` that `update()` returns the same value for all the
nodes in the path from leaf -> root.
    
    We could alternatively check whether the total allocation has changed outside `update`
and only update `dirty` once. We could conceivably compute `oldAllocationQuantity` and `newAllocationQuantity`
in `allocated` and pass them into `update` (for efficiency), but that is a bit ugly.
    
    Let me know what you think.


- Neil Conway


On May 11, 2017, 9:02 p.m., Anindya Sinha wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 11, 2017, 9:02 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Neil Conway.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7138
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7138
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> In `DRFSorter::update`, we should set the `dirty` flag only when the
> total scalar quantities have changed in any of the cleints in the
> hierarchy, and not always.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp fee58d6d1f08163e2a06a4a20c891fe535c3dcff

>   src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp 26b77f578f3235a8792c72d4575d607cdb2c7de7

> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/diff/3/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> All tests passed.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Anindya Sinha
> 
>


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