----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/#review121581 -----------------------------------------------------------
Fix it, then Ship it! src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (lines 2610 - 2620) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/#comment183318> let's use a loop, and add a comment explaining that we're trying to force the N^2 labels comparison algorithm by having so many labels. src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (lines 2633 - 2634) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/#comment183319> Can we add a TODO to factor this test out by parameterizing the DeclineFilter test of which it is a copy? - Joris Van Remoortere On March 2, 2016, 2:21 a.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 2, 2016, 2:21 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere and Michael Park. > > > Bugs: MESOS-4691 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4691 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This reveals that when the cluster contains many reservations with > distinct labels, allocator performance slows down dramatically. A > short-term fix for this problem will be introduced shortly. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > 5f771f02db9bd098f3cd36730cd84bf2f5e87a33 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > FYI, results on my laptop: > > _Original benchmark (unlabeled resources)_ > [ RUN ] HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.DeclineOffers > Using 2000 slaves and 200 frameworks > round 0 allocate took 2.028175secs to make 200 offers > round 1 allocate took 2.006791secs to make 200 offers > round 2 allocate took 2.033723secs to make 200 offers > round 3 allocate took 2.017508secs to make 200 offers > round 4 allocate took 2.037235secs to make 200 offers > round 5 allocate took 2.054095secs to make 200 offers > round 6 allocate took 2.048884secs to make 200 offers > round 7 allocate took 2.044252secs to make 200 offers > round 8 allocate took 2.060256secs to make 200 offers > round 9 allocate took 2.07121secs to make 200 offers > round 10 allocate took 2.066261secs to make 200 offers > round 11 allocate took 2.034805secs to make 200 offers > round 12 allocate took 2.053705secs to make 200 offers > round 13 allocate took 2.042106secs to make 200 offers > round 14 allocate took 2.082704secs to make 200 offers > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
