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 70994: Moved to sepearte methods the (un)suppressing logic common with update.
Date Wed, 03 Jul 2019 20:47:17 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/70994/#review216358
-----------------------------------------------------------


Fix it, then Ship it!




How about:

```
Extracted suppression logic in allocator for use in update framework.

This patch moves the logic of suppressing/unsuppressing a role set from
the inside of 'suppressOffers()'/'reviveOffers()' into separate methods.
Specifically, 'reviveOffers()' includes filter clearing logic that we
don't want when unsuppressing roles during framework update. For
'supppressOffers()', we need the empty set == all roles semantics, but
we don't want that in the suppression logic during framework update.

Longer term, the empty set == all roles semantics could be done in
the master and we won't need the extra function to provide empty set
== all roles logic in the allocator.

This is a prerequisite for using thes methods to fix
'updateFramework()' in a subsequent patch.
```

Note that I think we don't need the extra suppression function in the allocator, however we
need to update the master to provide the empty set == all roles semantics (which is more of
a protobuf API concern than something the allocator should know about).


src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp
Line 1342 (original), 1342 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/70994/#comment303557>

    Why not take `Framework*` in both of these?
    
    ...
    
    Wow, in the process of looking into this, I see we don't store the FrameworkID inside
the Framework struct.. we should change that, but for this patch taking FrameworkID is ok.
Maybe some TODOs.



src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp
Lines 1363-1364 (original), 1375-1376 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/70994/#comment303558>

    Probably we should just log this in the suppressRoles function? Ideally, we only log those
roles that transitioned from unsuppressed -> suppressed, but we currently log the no-ops
for roles that are already unsuppressed.
    
    A TODO is fine for now:
    
    ```
      // TODO(bmahler): This logs roles that were already suppressed,
      // only log roles that transitioned from unsuppressed -> suppressed.
      LOG(INFO) << "Suppressed offers for roles " << stringify(roles)
                << " of framework " << frameworkId;
    ```



src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp
Line 1391 (original), 1398 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/70994/#comment303560>

    To be consistent:
    
    ```
      // TODO(bmahler): This logs roles that were already unsuppressed,
      // only log roles that transitioned from suppressed -> unsuppressed.
      LOG(INFO) << "Unsuppressed offers for roles " << stringify(roles)
                << " of framework " << frameworkId;
    ```
    
    reviveOffers can keep logging, since we also want to know when filters were cleared:
    
    ```
      LOG(INFO) << "Revived roles " << stringify(roles)
                << " of framework " << frameworkId;
    ```


- Benjamin Mahler


On July 2, 2019, 7:10 p.m., Andrei Sekretenko wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/70994/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 2, 2019, 7:10 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Mahler and Meng Zhu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-9870
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9870
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This patch moves the logic of suppressing/unsuppressing a role set from
> the inside of 'suppressOffers()'/'reviveOffers()' into separate methods.
> 
> This is a prerequisite for using this methods to fix updateFramework()
> in the dependent patch.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.hpp 7e9765263f969a4499358579f1ee5bb1afb053da

>   src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp 26aad6778f12b99bb87c846788d6b6d60f743d8a

> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/70994/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrei Sekretenko
> 
>


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