> On Feb. 28, 2014, 9:10 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/tests/isolator_tests.cpp, lines 389-450 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18639/diff/2/?file=507096#file507096line389> > > > > Hm.. what will happen in the future if the Isolator rejects 100 cpus > > for being larger than the machine resources? Can we just write a unit test > > against the cgroups::cpu wrapper functions now that we have them?
Added a TODO to kill this test in the future if/when the restriction happens in the isolator. A nice thing is that we are using doubles for cpu shares. Added another concentrated test in the subsequent review. - Vinod ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18639/#review35847 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Feb. 28, 2014, 8:54 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/18639/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 28, 2014, 8:54 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler. > > > Bugs: MESOS-1049 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1049 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/containerizer/isolators/cgroups/cpushare.cpp > 160e8fe5eb06a2f65924734157b7b8d468d8be36 > src/tests/isolator_tests.cpp c9d4da84f37c182f5d13281db5193026a16045dd > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18639/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Verified manually by changing the cpu shares to 13.5 in > LimitedCpuIsolatorTest. > > Didn't change the test in this diff because I want to come up with a test > that runs for all users and doesn't take too much time. > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
