> On Oct. 10, 2014, 11:24 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp, line 1027 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/diff/7-8/?file=715216#file715216line1027> > > > > why this change?
More readable. But I'll revert it. > On Oct. 10, 2014, 11:24 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp, line 1087 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/diff/7-8/?file=715216#file715216line1087> > > > > How can removeFramework() be called twice!!!???? Wouldn't that throw a > > CHECK failure? I thought that shutting down would call it again, but no. The debugger says gmock reacts to the Master::removeFramework call, not Slave::removeFramework, here. Will investigate. > On Oct. 10, 2014, 11:24 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, line 1413 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/diff/8/?file=716689#file716689line1413> > > > > It is weird to me that you remove the task here but (potentially) > > remove the executor up in _runTask(). It's not obvious to me why you made > > that choice. If there is a good reason, please add a comment here. The task is removed in killTask(), because later on the information that it should be removed is no longer easily at hand. I looked at lines 1194, 1195 in _runTask(): Framework* framework = getFramework(frameworkId); CHECK_NOTNULL(framework); If I removed the framework earlier than this, this check would fire. If I want to avoid that, I need to write extra code (e.g. prevent _runTask() from happening). Assembling all framework removals in the second half of _runTask() looks like good defensive practice to me. There is no harm in removing the framework in _runTask() vs. killTask() since _runTask() must eventually happen. But by waiting with removing the framework until _runTask(), we do not need to think about what implications concurrent starting and killing of multiple tasks with the same executor might have. > On Oct. 10, 2014, 11:24 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 1212-1214 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/diff/8/?file=716689#file716689line1212> > > > > This seems out of place to me. See my comments below. See below. - Bernd ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#review56016 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 9, 2014, 7:10 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 9, 2014, 7:10 a.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 76d505c698774204b2536b66ea8a83a9a2a5e2c1 > src/slave/slave.cpp cb3759993f863590cb1545c73072feb0331aa6c9 > src/tests/mesos.hpp 957e2233cc11c438fd80d3b6d1907a1223093104 > src/tests/mesos.cpp 3dcb2acd5ad4ab5e3a7b4fe524ee077558112773 > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp 69be28f6e82b99e23424bd2be8294f715d8040d4 > > 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 > >
