-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65891/#review198576
-----------------------------------------------------------



PASS: Mesos patch 65891 was successfully built and tested.

Reviews applied: `['65890', '65891']`

All the build artifacts available at: 
http://dcos-win.westus.cloudapp.azure.com/mesos-build/review/65891

- Mesos Reviewbot Windows


On March 2, 2018, 3:21 p.m., Andrew Schwartzmeyer wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65891/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 2, 2018, 3:21 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Akash Gupta and Joseph Wu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8631
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8631
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The `set_job_cpu_limit` function does not sanitize its input, e.g.
> `cpus`, causing a bug when more CPUs were requested than exist on the
> machine.
> 
> For instance, in Mesos it was not possible to start a single task
> which consumed every CPU, because the executor overcommit would cause
> the task to ask for 0.1 more CPUs than available. So on a quad-core
> machine, it'd ask for 4 CPUs, but that would cause the limiter to set
> a limit at 4.1 CPUs, which exceeds the maximum allowed, causing an
> "Invalid parameter" error when setting the CPU limit. We can avoid
> this by ensuring the `cpu_rate` value is in the range of [1, 10000],
> regardless of the input.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/stout/include/stout/windows/os.hpp 
> 545a0052c87652ec35adf12bb184fd35f1238977 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65891/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tested manually and can successfully now deploy a 12 CPU task on a 12 core 
> machine.
> 
> Will file an issue to add appropriate unit tests.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew Schwartzmeyer
> 
>

Reply via email to