> On Jan. 7, 2020, 9:43 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.cpp
> > Lines 3140-3201 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/diff/4/?file=2191535#file2191535line3140>
> >
> >     I think maybe this logic could be easier to read if we do something 
> > like:
> >     
> >     ```
> >     auto limitsAreSet = [](const vector<TaskInfo>& tasks) {
> >       foreach (const TaskInfo& task, tasks) {
> >         if (!task.limits().empty()) {
> >           return true;
> >         }
> >       }
> >       
> >       return false;
> >     };
> >     
> >     Option<Map<string, Value::Scalar>> executorLimits;
> >     if (limitsAreSet(tasks)) {
> >       executorLimits = Map<string, Value::Scalar>();
> >       foreach (const TaskInfo& task, tasks) {
> >         // Add up task limits/requests here.
> >       }
> >     }
> >     ```
> >     
> >     What do you think?
> 
> Qian Zhang wrote:
>     I am a bit confused how it will simplify the logic here, like: how will 
> you do the `Add up task limits/requests here`? I guess you still need the 
> code from L3140 to L3201, right?
> 
> Greg Mann wrote:
>     Ah sorry, before I answer your question I have another one: currently, 
> your code will only set the executor's cpu limit if one or more tasks have a 
> cpu limit set, and will only set the executor's mem limit if one or more 
> tasks have the memory limit set. However, I think we also want to set the cpu 
> limit if one or more tasks has a _memory_ limit set, and we want to set the 
> memory limit if one or more tasks has a _cpu_ limit set, right? This way, if 
> a single task under an executor sets either a cpu or memory limit, then all 
> tasks will have both the cpu and memory limit set (and if it wasn't specified 
> for a particular task, it will be set to the default, which is the value of 
> the request).
> 
> Qian Zhang wrote:
>     So if a framework launches two tasks (t1 and t2) with a same executor, t1 
> has CPU limit specified but no memory limit specified, t2 has both of the CPU 
> and memory limits not specified, then we should not only set CPU hard limit 
> but also the memory hard limit (i.e., set it to t1's memory request + t2's 
> memory request) in the executor container's cgroups, right? I think we have 
> already done it because executor's resource requests always includes all 
> task's resource requests (see L3209 in this patch 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/diff/6 ), and in the memory cgroups 
> (`memory.cpp`) we will set the executor container's memory hard limit 
> (`memory.limit_in_bytes`) to its memory request if its memory limit is not 
> specified (see https://reviews.apache.org/r/71943/ for details).
>     
>     And similarly if t1 has memory limit specified but no CPU limit 
> specified, in the CPU cgroups we will set the executor container's CPU hard 
> limit (CFS quota) to the executor's CPU request if `--cgroups_enable_cfs` is 
> true.

> I think we have already done it because executor's resource requests always 
> includes all task's resource requests (see L3209 in this patch 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/diff/6 )

That works when the executor is first launched, but will it be updated when 
additional task groups are sent to the same executor?

> And similarly if t1 has memory limit specified but no CPU limit specified, in 
> the CPU cgroups we will set the executor container's CPU hard limit (CFS 
> quota) to the executor's CPU request if --cgroups_enable_cfs is true.

If t1 has a memory limit specified, then don't we want to set the CFS quota 
regardless of whether or not the '--cgroups_enable_cfs' flag is set?


- Greg


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/#review219154
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 8, 2020, 2:40 a.m., Qian Zhang wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 8, 2020, 2:40 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Andrei Budnik and Greg Mann.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-10046
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-10046
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> WIP: Set resource limits when launching executor container.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/slave.hpp 77b5bc0082c6bb73fbd48a2ebe812629921645cb 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp 3839a120446339fea8aa857f431a2dba28ed4002 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/diff/6/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Qian Zhang
> 
>

Reply via email to