----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55897/#review172731 -----------------------------------------------------------
Partial review for discussion. src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/disk.cpp Lines 174 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55897/#comment245783> `quotaPolicy(_quotaPolicy)` by convention. src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/utils.hpp Lines 65 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55897/#comment245781> We started to move toward `enum class` now. src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/utils.hpp Lines 66-67 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55897/#comment245782> With enum class it's safe to just s/QUOTA_POLICY_ENFORCING/ENFORCING/ s/QUOTA_POLICY_ACCOUNTING/ACCOUNTING/ for brevity. src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/utils.cpp Lines 148 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55897/#comment245811> I guess the way it works is that we have selected these two fields but provided 0 values through zero initialization. Maybe a short comment to make this explicit? src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/utils.cpp Lines 153-154 (original), 185-186 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55897/#comment245793> Does this comment need adjustment now that we are using the soft limit differently? I have questions about the need for soft limit below but I don't recall the reason for setting the soft limits earlier "just for consistency". Soft limits is one of the low-level system's funtionality that we didn't use. If we didn't use it, I am not sure about the need for our util or the reader to be aware of it (the concept of soft limit)? src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/utils.cpp Lines 195 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55897/#comment245812> The fact that `0u` means clearing the quota perhaps worth a short comment? src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/utils.cpp Lines 196 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55897/#comment245813> From reading the references it seems that the soft limits and non-enforcement are two different things? Plus, the behavior when the soft limit is hit is subject to [ID zero's d_btimer value](http://xfs.org/docs/xfsdocs-xml-dev/XFS_Filesystem_Structure/tmp/en-US/html/Internal_Inodes.html) which could be set out-of-band so it could totally do things not expected here? It looks like we can still just rely on `d_blk_hardlimit`: set it in the enforcement mode and don't set it at all in the accounting-only mode? I could be totally mistaken but if I am, we should improve the documentation to clarify for the readers. - Jiang Yan Xu On March 17, 2017, 2:57 p.m., James Peach wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/55897/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 17, 2017, 2:57 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jie Yu, and Jiang Yan Xu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-5116 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5116 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Add XFS disk isolator support for not enforcing disk quotas on > containers. While there is a global filesystem configuration option > to turn off quota enforcement, we should not automatically toggle > that because we don't know why the operator might have changed that > configuration. Instead, we use the soft quota limit to implement > an accounting quota and the hard limit for an enforced quota. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/disk.hpp > 52f0459421a45b01ce38b17c689633301cd97982 > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/disk.cpp > 40f1049358ad99d3f213289e36def81c580f07f3 > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/utils.hpp > eddd4c37fb42339ca21ecb392dea47acf6b277bb > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/xfs/utils.cpp > 8018ad348d26bd962357543a5fb9f6cb43ff13b1 > src/tests/containerizer/xfs_quota_tests.cpp > 7beb60b059910a0d4451b1ace895a35dc974a043 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55897/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > sudo make check (Fedora 25) > > > Thanks, > > James Peach > >
