----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/#review17210 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/#comment36502> Can you make this comment a little clearer? My suggestion: Before // Checkpoint the forked pid, if necessary. // We do this here instead of in the parent process, because if we do it // in the slave, the slave might die immediately after it forks but before // it writes the the pid to disk. This will result in an orphaned executor // process that the slave has no idea about when doing recovery. s/the the/the After: // Checkpoint the forked pid, if necessary. // The checkpointing must be done in the forked process, because // the slave process can die immediately after the isolation module forks but before it would have // a chance to write the pid to disk. That would result in an orphaned // executor process unknown to the slave when doing recovery. src/slave/flags.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/#comment36503> Since operators will be reading this string, let's make it very clear for them: Before: "Whether to checkpoint relevant info about the slave and frameworks\n" "to disk. This will enable a restarted slave to recover\n" "status updates and reconnect with old executors, if so desired." After: "Enable checkpointing of slave and framework information to disk.\n" "This enables a restarted slave to recover status updates and reconnect\n" "with old executors, if --recover is specified." What is if so desired? If --recover is specified? src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/#comment36505> Ditto on my earlier review, I'd rather this send TASK_FAILED or TASK_LOST with this message. Or at least, please add a TODO that this is not implemented because we're deprecating the lxc isolation module? Seems pretty bad that a framework can cause slaves to exit at will! src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/#comment36506> ditto above comment src/slave/slave.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/#comment36511> Why did you move these in this review, as opposed to the review where you introduced them? src/slave/slave.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/#comment36508> s/This callback is called/This continuation runs src/slave/slave.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/#comment36512> s/but the slave doesn't support checkpointing!/but checkpointing is not enabled on the slave!/ src/slave/slave.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/#comment36513> ditto "not enabled" vs "supported" src/slave/slave.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/#comment36509> ditto from my review of part 3, with respect to just having statusUpdate src/slave/slave.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/#comment36510> getLibprocessPIDPath sounds ambiguous, maybe this would be better named as getExecutorDriverPIDPath? - Ben Mahler On Feb. 23, 2013, 8:12 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 23, 2013, 8:12 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler. > > > Description > ------- > > Checkpoints slave id, framework pid, executor pids (libprocess, execed, > forked) and task info. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/mesos.proto 38235157d45bdccb676e5c3241c21b585a6f8801 > src/exec/exec.cpp 821a94fab1f5969183ecf9e28d7b6bc10920db24 > src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.hpp > 669efa14ba2603764aa68ae19a44e79dbfdec192 > src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.cpp > a2eba6f96f5d8a4b1257571aa29e37c5682aab8d > src/slave/flags.hpp 39e57f4104ee7a1538436ebbb9493581e28c99dd > src/slave/isolation_module.hpp b962365ebeddd047896a66b02a327aa26ae323d3 > src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.hpp 2bc844f491befbe588965da2ada7cfcef0b6f0a4 > src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp 30cff2a49339bb07030727d30352536a0a22d58c > src/slave/paths.hpp fbf3fd84fb8f2590311b18d2afec2d2e0d30ef0a > src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.hpp > f1817192582e3646f8dcf17934ba7998829e8fd6 > src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp > 12a579cba56cd3dac384bc7919b0d5537b0e429d > src/slave/slave.hpp e9f7b659ca2860501840b3d01e69915ebd162039 > src/slave/slave.cpp d4721c3eb51db87278d05f6fbe2eadb8a3a9b4dd > src/slave/state.hpp c1e4c782380b0076313d2216c40e86774050d445 > src/slave/state.cpp 2688567719c5b12f1d8a56fa6193c11d4077685b > src/tests/protobuf_io_tests.cpp 5bd1e676761ac35d30b9491fb397830c8a008795 > src/tests/slave_state_tests.cpp 1136ea93cffb1483458edad2605b0b4f83b61c44 > src/tests/status_update_manager_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION > src/tests/utils.hpp be457117515ee727af101370b26bf9188afb8f45 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8535/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
