> On July 17, 2013, 12:15 a.m., Bill Farner wrote: > > src/sched/sched.cpp, line 390 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/12603/diff/1/?file=322203#file322203line390> > > > > I'm ignorant to the implications of this, but can you confirm/deny the > > following behavior? > > > > - Queue holds [U1, U2, U3, U4] which have yet to be processed. > > > > - Update U1 arrives, this code processes it. > > > > - Scheduler aborts. > > > > - New scheduler receives retried [U1, U2, U2, U4] (in any order)
Not sure which queue you are referring to, but I'm assuming you mean the 'uuids' set? An update goes into 'uuids' only after it is processed (i.e., Scheduler::statusUpdate() returns) by the scheduler. In the above scenario if a duplicate U1 is enqueued in the libprocess queue and the scheduler aborts after handling the original U1, the driver would've aborted and we would have never come here. When a new scheduler (and driver) becomes the leader they get updates fresh from mesos. Does that make sense? > On July 17, 2013, 12:15 a.m., Bill Farner wrote: > > src/tests/status_update_manager_tests.cpp, line 469 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/12603/diff/1/?file=322204#file322204line469> > > > > From the description of this test case, it seems the desired behavior > > was already expected. Was there a regression at some point? > > > > Also, i notice that it explicitly refers to "terminal status updates". > > Is that still accurate, or are all equivalent updates now de-duplicated? This test previously expected the mock scheduler to get the retried update. The update was retried by the slave, because the acknowledgement by the scheduler was dropped by the test! Since the driver now acks it, the scheduler shouldn't receive it. Hence the need for the test fix. > On July 17, 2013, 12:15 a.m., Bill Farner wrote: > > src/sched/sched.cpp, line 386 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/12603/diff/1/?file=322203#file322203line386> > > > > s/,// done - Vinod ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/12603/#review23212 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 16, 2013, 11:45 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/12603/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 16, 2013, 11:45 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler. > > > Bugs: MESOS-551 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-551 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/sched/sched.cpp 7ea82e547c612159c9fa24fb6d62e3d2b5f11982 > src/tests/status_update_manager_tests.cpp > 42395324dfe49659bee2229c6573ffef0874d923 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/12603/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check (OSX and Linux) > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
