-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35631/#review88472
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Great, thanks Jie!


src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (line 976)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35631/#comment141009>

    I think we were avoiding {} here before we had gcc 4.8 as an assumption, so 
should be safe to do now, up to you.



src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (line 980)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35631/#comment141008>

    Can you do {} instead of explicit hashmap construction?



src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (line 986)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35631/#comment141010>

    Maybe just s/slaveCount/GetParam()/ and remove the 'slaveCount' variable? 
Then below you could replace 'slaveCount' with 'slaves.size()' or a foreach 
loop. Whichever you think is cleaner!



src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (line 994)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35631/#comment141007>

    Might be nice to have a bit more port fragmentation, to match the 
pathological scenario. :)


- Ben Mahler


On June 19, 2015, 12:15 a.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35631/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 19, 2015, 12:15 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2892
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2892
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added a performance benchmark for hierarchical allocator addSlave.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp 
> 85bb29e7cfc00579ff8f6d62d6c75e1b99ffcdba 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35631/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> bin/mesos-test.sh --benchmark
> 
> 0.23.0 current master
> 
> 
> 0.23.0 before MESOS-2373
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jie Yu
> 
>

Reply via email to