> On May 16, 2015, 4:46 a.m., Timothy Chen wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/isolators/cgroups/cpushare.cpp, line 345
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/diff/1/?file=961963#file961963line345>
> >
> >     What if the same set of resources contains both revocable and 
> > non-revocable resources?
> 
> Ian Downes wrote:
>     Hmm, I presumed that any amount of revocable CPU means the container is 
> treated as revocable. Thoughts?

I believe what you said it's true, I think it just wasn't obvious to me when I 
read the code. I wonder if we have anywhere that states this or we should state 
it here?


- Timothy


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/#review84024
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 19, 2015, 7:58 p.m., Ian Downes wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 19, 2015, 7:58 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod 
> Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2652
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2652
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Use IDLE scheduling for revocable CPU in cgroups isolator.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/isolators/cgroups/cpushare.hpp 
> ff4a9dbdb1b655e71bf87dcee8fe62433d396f52 
>   src/slave/containerizer/isolators/cgroups/cpushare.cpp 
> 6a5b2b5c6e2844fe1a10815956569194b6f56681 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ian Downes
> 
>

Reply via email to