----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/70132/#review214812 -----------------------------------------------------------
docs/scheduler-http-api.md Line 132 (original), 132 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/70132/#comment301063> What do you think of getting rid of "implicitly declined" behavior for "cancelling operations"? It seems that behavior is more driven by the implementation than intuitive api behavior; it e.g., forces frameworks to reason differently about operations executed in isolation vs. executed together. It seems having the identical behavior for both cases would both be easier to explain and also program against. The behavior that seems to make most sense for me would be to only ever implictly decline "untouched resources", e.g., if accepting offered `cpus:4` with `RESERVE(cpus:2, role) && UNRESERVE(cpus:2, role)` we would implicitly decline only `cpus:2`. src/master/master.cpp Lines 5963-5964 (original), 5983-5984 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/70132/#comment301062> Is this a workaround we need until MESOS-4553 gets resolved? If it is, let's add a `TODO`. src/tests/slave_tests.cpp Lines 6499 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/70132/#comment301064> Since the changes in this patch are strongly related to behavior framework authors need to reason about I strongly feel that we must add a test for the expected behavior. - Benjamin Bannier On April 23, 2019, 3:15 a.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/70132/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 23, 2019, 3:15 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Benjamin Mahler, and Meng Zhu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-9616 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9616 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Currently if a framework accepts an offer to perform pipelined > operations, e.g., reserving resource, without a final consumer, the > converted resources will be implicitly declined. This is an undesired > behavior as the framework might want to reserve one resource first but > launch a task later in the next allocation cycle. This patch fixes this > behavior. > > But, if the framework accepts an offers with multiple operations that > cancel out each other, the resources consumed by these operations are > still considered unused and will be declined. > > > Diffs > ----- > > docs/scheduler-http-api.md a5327c229142267836f327f9c382ef50b7e334db > src/master/master.cpp ad54ae217863a08f4e6d743b39c176b171353084 > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp b1c3a01031b917fb9773c8c890a8f88838870559 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/70132/diff/5/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Chun-Hung Hsiao > >
