----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#review147994 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/slave.hpp (line 325) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215316> s/tasks/tasks or task groups src/slave/slave.hpp (line 326) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215317> s/RunTaskMessages/RunTaskMessages or LaunchGroup src/slave/slave.hpp (lines 327 - 329) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215315> kill this? src/slave/slave.hpp (line 845) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215318> How about s/findQueuedTaskGroup/getQueuedTaskGroup src/slave/slave.hpp (line 1027) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215319> How about const? src/slave/slave.cpp (line 1709) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215325> s/for/to src/slave/slave.cpp (line 1746) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215327> What about enhance the reason as `Task killed before it was launched due to one task killed in the task group`? src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 1823 - 1845) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215328> I think the reason is not correct for other tasks in the task group. What about sending out TASK_LOST reason separately as following logic: if checkpoint failure: task lost with reason as checkpoint failure if kill: foreach task but not the checkpoint failure task: task lost with reason as one task fail cause whole task groupp fail src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 1863 - 1884) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215329> ditto as above for updating `reasons` separately src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 1980 - 1981) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215333> What about adding `executor state` to the log message? src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 2002 - 2003) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215334> ditto src/slave/slave.cpp (line 2370) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215337> Just a question here, we are killing task in task group, and we can even say here is killing a task group, but here the status is still `TASK_KILLED`, do we need to introduce a new `TASKGROUP_KILLED` for this? Ditto for other places. src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 3099 - 3114) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/#comment215346> Can you please show more detail and update the comments here for which case will cause the `executor->queuedTasks` and `executor->queuedTaskGroups` have same taskId? - Guangya Liu On 九月 6, 2016, 9:25 p.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 九月 6, 2016, 9:25 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-6076 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6076 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This changes implements the `runTaskGroup()` handler on the > agent ensuring that task group is sent atomically to the executor > via the `LAUNCH_GROUP` event. It also refactors `runTask()`/`_runTask()` > to go through a common handler function. Also, it ensures that all > tasks in `framework->pending`/`queuedTasks` that are killed before > running the task group result in all the tasks being killed. > > Review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/ > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/slave.hpp 4add4c0180ea56039e0d5009bad4d9346128bde6 > src/slave/slave.cpp 11664779ed78c0a5913598bb7dd1bb0e793d6b93 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51477/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Anand Mazumdar > >
