> On Jan. 21, 2016, 7:17 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > Thanks Alex, code change looks great. Feel free to split the fix and the > > tests into different patches if you like. > > > > Is there also an existing test for an offer filter being larger than the > > allocation timeout?
There is no test for this AFAIK, but it's a good idea to have one. I think we can extend the one I have added. > On Jan. 21, 2016, 7:17 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp, line 79 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/diff/2/?file=1202266#file1202266line79> > > > > It would be great to isolate this fix, any reason you've included the > > private addition here rather than in a separate patch? Yeah, I agree that keeping functional changes separate from cleanups and style changes is a good thing, but here I thought I have the right to meld this change together because I removed one field : ). I'll do it in a separate patch. > On Jan. 21, 2016, 7:17 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, lines 480-481 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/diff/2/?file=1202267#file1202267line480> > > > > Took me some time to figure out why this note is here :) > > > > How about placing the addSlave call before we add the frameworks? Will > > that avoid the need for omitting the allocation here and hence the need for > > the NOTE? If we place `addSlave` first, we'll also have to place an allocation-await block and some comments about the cluster resources, which is IMHO noise for this particular test. My intention was to start with a certain (i.e. meaningful for this particular test) allocation state in order not to distract a reader with irrelevant allocations. I would suggest we reword the note or remove it altogether if you find it misleading. > On Jan. 21, 2016, 7:17 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, lines 527-528 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/diff/2/?file=1202267#file1202267line527> > > > > Why not explcitly set the allocation interval by passing the flags into > > initialize()? It seems a bit fragile to assume 100ms is less than the > > implicit default, which may change. Hence the `ASSERT_GT(flags.allocation_interval.secs(), offerFilter.refuse_seconds());` check: if it ever changes, the test will break. But I can explicitly set the interval in flags instead. > On Jan. 21, 2016, 7:17 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, line 1303 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/diff/2/?file=1202267#file1202267line1303> > > > > Would you mind omitting this change here, so that this patch is focused > > solely on the fix? Sure! > On Jan. 21, 2016, 7:17 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, lines 1410-1411 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/diff/2/?file=1202267#file1202267line1410> > > > > As far as terminology goes, it would be great to consistently refer to > > "batch allocation", otherwise readers may be confused as to whether there > > is a distinction between a "periodic allocation" and a "batch allocation". Sure. I think you introduced the term "periodic allocation" in https://reviews.apache.org/r/28815/ : ). I can also clean up all other occurencies in the file. - Alexander ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/#review115583 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 19, 2016, 11:32 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 19, 2016, 11:32 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler and Joris Van Remoortere. > > > Bugs: MESOS-4302 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4302 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Without the timeout, we rely on filter expiration only. This guarantees > that filter removal is scheduled after `allocate()` if the allocator is > backlogged given default parameters are used. Additionally we ensure the > filter timeout is at least as big as the allocation interval. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp > 48acde69b1a2f305b568a7e322a58708063dd30a > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > 9362dd306497ba01e0f387c3862456cdcac6f863 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > On Mac OS 10.10.4: > > `make check` > > `GTEST_FILTER="HierarchicalAllocatorTest.FilterTimeout" ./bin/mesos-tests.sh > --gtest_repeat=100 --gtest_break_on_failure` passes with the patch and fails > without. > > `GTEST_FILTER="HierarchicalAllocatorTest.*" ./bin/mesos-tests.sh > --gtest_repeat=100 --gtest_break_on_failure` > > > Thanks, > > Alexander Rukletsov > >
