----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71953/#review219956 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/tests/containerizer/cgroups_isolator_tests.cpp Lines 498 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/71953/#comment308194> This can probably be EXPECT_EQ? src/tests/containerizer/cgroups_isolator_tests.cpp Lines 465-473 (original), 525-533 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/71953/#comment308196> Why are our expectations for CPU consumption changed after your update to the test? Aren't we still setting the CFS quota in the same way? - Greg Mann On March 16, 2020, 9:12 a.m., Qian Zhang wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/71953/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 16, 2020, 9:12 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Andrei Budnik and Greg Mann. > > > Bugs: MESOS-10047 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-10047 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This test is renamed to `ROOT_CGROUPS_CFS_CommandTaskNoLimits`, and > besides CFS quota, now it also verifies CPU shares, memory soft and > hard limits and OOM score adjustment. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/containerizer/cgroups_isolator_tests.cpp > f72e6cdab417368e63349915114aeed586e0ef0e > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71953/diff/5/ > > > Testing > ------- > > sudo make check > > > Thanks, > > Qian Zhang > >
