-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39401/#review103983
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp (line 1018)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/39401/#comment162125>

    Can we move this out of the for loop? if the role is satisfied, framewor 
sort is not necessary.



src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp (line 1056)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/39401/#comment162192>

    s/overcimmittment/overcommittment



src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp (line 1094)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/39401/#comment162201>

    `allocable(...)` checked whether resource is enough to allocate (cpu > 
MIN_CPU && men > MIN_MEN). So if the resources can not allocate here, is also 
can not allocate in DRF stage.



src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp (line 1101)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/39401/#comment162202>

    My understading of this code is to lay aside resources for unsatisfaied 
Quota in next allocation cycle, right?
    If so, I think we can move this out to another `foreach slaveIds` loop, so 
we did not need to lay aside resources.


- Klaus Ma


On Oct. 24, 2015, 12:38 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39401/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 24, 2015, 12:38 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Bernd Mathiske, Joerg Schad, and Joris Van 
> Remoortere.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3718
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3718
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp 
> f4e4a123d3da0442e8b0b0ad14d1ee760752ba36 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39401/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check (Mac OS X 10.10.4)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov
> 
>

Reply via email to