[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-2116?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12920905#action_12920905
]
luoli commented on MAPREDUCE-2116:
----------------------------------
bq. Joydeep has similar idea. But he created another class that keeps a pair.
We are testing this internally.
en~, that can work too.
And now we found the reason why the taskStatuses.get in shouldClose() consume
so much time. That's because in getTasksToKill(), the shouldClose() got called
so many times. This is because for every TaskAttemptID in taskIds which got
from
Set<TaskAttemptID> taskIds = trackerToTaskMap.get(taskTracker);
call, the taskIds will contains hundreds of entry if the tasktracker have
finished lots of task attempts and those task's job all have not finished
finally. So all those task attempts are contained in trackerToTaskMap's value
set. In this case, even lots of tasks attempt have finished in the tasktracker,
it gets iterated in every heartbeat of the tasktracker before the jobs which
they belong to have finished. This is not good.
> optimize getTasksToKill to reduce JobTracker contention
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MAPREDUCE-2116
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-2116
> Project: Hadoop Map/Reduce
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: jobtracker
> Reporter: Joydeep Sen Sarma
> Attachments: 2116.1.patch, getTaskToKill.JPG
>
>
> getTasksToKill shows up as one of the top routines holding the JT lock.
> Specifically, the translation from attemptid to tip is very expensive:
> at java.util.TreeMap.getEntry(TreeMap.java:328)
> at java.util.TreeMap.get(TreeMap.java:255)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.mapred.TaskInProgress.shouldClose(TaskInProgress.java:500)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.mapred.JobTracker.getTasksToKill(JobTracker.java:3464)
> locked <0x00002aab6ebb6640> (a org.apache.hadoop.mapred.JobTracker)
> at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.JobTracker.heartbeat(JobTracker.java:3181)
> this seems like an avoidable expense since the tip for a given attempt is
> fixed (and one should not need a map lookup to find the association). on a
> different note - not clear to me why TreeMaps are in use here (i didn't find
> any iteration over these maps). any background info on why things are
> arranged the way they are would be useful.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
