> On April 21, 2017, 5:13 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp > > Lines 109 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57254/diff/23/?file=1696213#file1696213line109> > > > > "sorter's tree"?
Changed. > On April 21, 2017, 5:13 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp > > Lines 141 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57254/diff/23/?file=1696213#file1696213line141> > > > > `s/role paths/client paths/`? I said "role path" deliberately, because a weight can be associated with a path in the tree that isn't a "client path". > On April 21, 2017, 5:13 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp > > Lines 187 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57254/diff/23/?file=1696213#file1696213line187> > > > > "sorter's tree" here as well. Changed. > On April 21, 2017, 5:13 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp > > Lines 253 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57254/diff/23/?file=1696213#file1696213line253> > > > > mm... I feel like maybe my suggestion of using `clientPath` isn't > > great.. since calling this function on a non-client will return its path, > > but the result is not a "client path". > > > > Maybe you were right with `logicalPath`? Yeah, it's not ideal either way ("logical path" is just a madeup term). I think `clientPath` is fine though. - Neil ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57254/#review172581 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 21, 2017, 4:32 a.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/57254/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 21, 2017, 4:32 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Benjamin Mahler, and Michael Park. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This commit replaces the sorter's flat list of clients with a tree; the > tree represents the hierarchical relationship between sorter clients. > Each node in the tree contains a vector of pointers to child nodes. The > tree might contain nodes that do not correspond directly to sorter > clients. For example, adding clients "a/b" and "c/d" results in the > following tree: > > root > -> a > -> b > -> c > -> d > > The `sort` member function still only returns one result for each active > client in the sorter. This is implemented by ensuring that each sorter > client is associated with a leaf node in the tree (i.e., internal nodes > are not returned by `sort`). Note that it is possible for a leaf node to > be transformed into an internal node by a subsequent insertion; to > handle this case, we "implicitly" create an extra child node, which > maintains the invariant that each client is associated with a leaf > node. For example, if the client "a/b/x" is added to the tree above, the > result is: > > root > -> a > -> b > -> . > -> x > -> c > -> d > > The "." leaf node holds the allocation that has been made to the "a/b" > client itself; the "a/b" node holds the sum of all the allocations that > have been made to the subtree rooted at "a/b", which also includes > "a/b/x". The "." node is called a "virtual leaf node". > > This commit also introduces a new approach to sorting: rather than > keeping a `std::set` of sorter clients, we now keep a tree of > `std::vector`, which is sorted explicitly via `std::sort` when > necessary. The previous implementation tried to optimize the sorting > process by updating the sort order incrementally when a single sorter > client was updated; this commit removes that optimization, and instead > re-sorts the entire tree whenever a change is made that might alter the > sort order. Re-introducing a version of this optimization would make > sense in the future (MESOS-7390), but benchmarking suggests that this > commit results in a net improvement in sorter performance for > non-hierarchical clients, anyway. The performance improvement is likely > due to the introduction of a secondary hashmap that allows the leaf node > associated with a client name to be found efficiently; the previous > implementation required a linear scan of a `std::set`. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/metrics.cpp > 15aab32db5ca1a7a14080e9bbb7c65283be3ec20 > src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp > 76329220e1115c1de7810fb69b943c78c078be59 > src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp > ed54680cecb637931fc344fbcf8fd3b14cc24295 > src/master/allocator/sorter/sorter.hpp > b3029fcf7342406955760da53f1ae736769f308c > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > 33e7b455f8664858eb4f03727b076a10c80cd6e0 > src/tests/master_allocator_tests.cpp > 119e318f8a01d50e8dae5c30cf5fa6a017c3c625 > src/tests/sorter_tests.cpp 43bd85798aef0c89751b725ebf35308a5e9e997a > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57254/diff/24/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
