----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#review49980 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/tests/slave_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment87433> s/killTaskFunction/killTask/ src/tests/slave_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment87434> s/process::// ? src/tests/slave_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment87447> These expectations should be set before you call driver.launchTasks(). src/tests/slave_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment87446> Do you have to send killTask() before runTask() is called? AFAICT, you just need to make sure to call it before _runTask(). If yes, it's simpler (no need for closures and static functions) to satisfy a future here when _runTask() is called and call killTask(). Future<Nothing> _runTask; EXPECT_CALL(slave, _runTask(_, _, _, _, _)) .WillOnce(DoAll( FutureSatisfy<&_runTask>, SaveArg<0>(&future), SaveArg<1>(&frameworkInfo), SaveArg<2>(&frameworkId))); EXPECT_CALL(slave, runTask(_, _, _, _, _)) .WillOnce(Invoke(&slave, &MockSlave::unmocked_runTask)); AWAIT_READY(_runTask); driver.killTask(); - Vinod Kone On Aug. 6, 2014, 11:51 p.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 6, 2014, 11:51 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos. > > > Bugs: MESOS-947 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-947 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > Fixes MESOS-947 "Slave should properly handle a killTask() that arrives > between runTask() and _runTask()". > > Slave::killTask() did not check for task in question combination to be > "pending" (i.e. Slave::runTask had happened, but Slave::_runTask had not yet) > and then erroneously assumed that Slave::runTask() had not been executed. The > task was then marked "LOST" instead of "KILLED". But Slave::runTask had > already scheduled Slave::_runTask to follow. Now the entry for being > "pending" is removed, and the task is marked "KILLED", and _runTask gets > informed about this. It checks whether the task in question is currently > "pending" and if it is not, then it infers that the task has been killed and > does not erroneously try to complete launching it. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/slave.hpp a896bb66db5d8cd27ef02b6498c9db93cb0d525f > src/slave/slave.cpp 1d5691836822c8587e1aa8ed24860a8012c67a6e > src/tests/mesos.hpp 75c66fda2485afa0d4541e710780d90b3411839a > src/tests/mesos.cpp 35c94fa908ad728ea92a7d1bfcbe90d57b1b83d9 > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp e45255a6f699e51bf09397da95a5a11edbabe591 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Wrote a unit test that reliably created the situation described in the > ticket. Observed that TASK_LOST and the listed log output occurred. This > pointed directly to the lines in killTask() where the problem is rooted. Ran > the test after fixing, it succeeded. Checked the log. It looks like a "clean > kill" now :-) > > > Thanks, > > Bernd Mathiske > >
