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 Thu, 15 Jun 2017 21:06:45 GMT


> On June 2, 2017, 4:26 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> > src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp
> > Lines 347 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/diff/3/?file=1716055#file1716055line347>
> >
> >     Why is `flatten` necessary here? We are already comparing two scalar quantities,
so is the flatten required?
> 
> Anindya Sinha wrote:
>     In the case of a `RESERVE` or `UNRESERVE` operation, the `newAllocation` and `oldAllocation`
varies in distribution of resources across roles.
>     
>     eg. For `RESERVE`, oldAllocation = `disk(*):100`, and newAllocation = `disk(*):90;
disk(role1):10`.
>     
>     So, `createStrippedScalarQuantities()` on these `Resources` shall drop the `ReservationInfo`
but the roles will remain intact.
>     Without `flatten()`, `oldAllocationQuantity` and `newAllocationQuantity` will not
be the same (due to different roles) and hence `dirty` shall be set. But I do not think we
need to recalculate shares since the total resources have not changed (only the distribution
has changed in terms of roles). That is the reason for the comparison having the `flatten()`.
>     
>     Looking at when `dirty` is true: We update `totals` (which is hashmap `<ResourceName,
ScalarValue>` in `update()`. And when `calculateShare()` is called, we calculate share
based on totals in the Sorter and individual Node. So I think we should be good to have the
`flatten()` in this comparison.
>     
>     Let me know if this does not sound ok.
> 
> Neil Conway wrote:
>     Sounds reasonable.
> 
> Anindya Sinha wrote:
>     So, can this be merged now?

Sorry, should have updated the ticket with the progress here. I wanted to get BenM's input
on the best way to do the update for multiple levels of the hierarchy. He's tied up this week
but we're hoping to get some time to discuss on Monday -- would be great to loop you in via
hangouts or slack.


- Neil


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


On June 2, 2017, 4:59 p.m., Anindya Sinha wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 2, 2017, 4:59 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 clients in the
> hierarchy, and not always.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp 77e52dec735d276389643f7f356cd763b2f785e9

>   src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp ecc5586737b6b447c5a1cf1a37037832bcbacd69

> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57935/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> All tests passed.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Anindya Sinha
> 
>


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