[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3553) TreeSet is not a nice container for organizing schedulableEntities.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3553?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14526295#comment-14526295 ] Xianyin Xin commented on YARN-3553: --- Thanks, [~leftnoteasy] and [~cwelch]. Now that it is not an issue, just close it. TreeSet is not a nice container for organizing schedulableEntities. --- Key: YARN-3553 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3553 Project: Hadoop YARN Issue Type: Wish Components: scheduler Reporter: Xianyin Xin For TreeSet, element is identified by comparator, not the object reference. If any *attributes that used for comparing two elements* of an specific element is modified by other methods, the TreeSet will be in an un-sorted state, and cannot become sorted forever except that we reconstruct another TreeSet with the elements. To avoid this, one must be *very careful* when they try to modify the attributes (such as increase or decrease the used capacity of a schedulabeEntity) of an object. An example in AbstractComparatorOrderingPolicy.java, Line63, {code} protected void reorderSchedulableEntity(S schedulableEntity) { //remove, update comparable data, and reinsert to update position in order schedulableEntities.remove(schedulableEntity); updateSchedulingResourceUsage( schedulableEntity.getSchedulingResourceUsage()); schedulableEntities.add(schedulableEntity); } {code} This method tries to remove the schedulableEntity first and then reinsert it so as to reorder the set. However, the changes of the schedulableEntity should be done in the middle of the above two operations. But the comparator of the class is not clear, so we don't know which attributes of the schedulableEntity was changed. If we changed the schedulableEntity outside the method and then inform the orderingPolicy that we made such a change, the operation schedulableEntities.remove(schedulableEntity) would not work correctly since the element of a TreeSet is identified by comparator. Any implement class of this abstract class should overwrite this method, but few does. Another choice is that we make modification of a schedulableEntity manually, but we mustn't forget to reorder the set when we do so and must remember the order: remove, modify the attributes(used for comparing), insert, or use an iterator to mark the schedulableEntity so that we can remove and reinsert it correctly. YARN-897 is an example that we fell into the trap. If the comparator become complex in future, e.g., we consider other types of resources in comparator, such traps will be more and disperse anywhere, which makes it easy to let a TreeSet become a un-sorted state. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3553) TreeSet is not a nice container for organizing schedulableEntities.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3553?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14523757#comment-14523757 ] Craig Welch commented on YARN-3553: --- [~xinxianyin], this pattern is important for these implementations for efficiency reasons - the frequency with which changes occur which effect ordering is much less than the frequency with which the applications must be available in the proper order for allocation (esp. when allocating on heartbeat, which is typical..). By iteratively resorting individual elements only when needed we avoid frequent resorting of all applications in the queue, which can be quite expensive with the frequency it would occur. Values are cached with a pretty simple update lifecycle to avoid the issues you are concerned about. Finally, this is an implementation specific choice, other implementations of ordering policies are free to use other data structures / sorting frequency, although the concern wrt efficiency which this approach avoids would apply to any non-iterative approaches. TreeSet is not a nice container for organizing schedulableEntities. --- Key: YARN-3553 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3553 Project: Hadoop YARN Issue Type: Wish Components: scheduler Reporter: Xianyin Xin For TreeSet, element is identified by comparator, not the object reference. If any *attributes that used for comparing two elements* of an specific element is modified by other methods, the TreeSet will be in an un-sorted state, and cannot become sorted forever except that we reconstruct another TreeSet with the elements. To avoid this, one must be *very careful* when they try to modify the attributes (such as increase or decrease the used capacity of a schedulabeEntity) of an object. An example in AbstractComparatorOrderingPolicy.java, Line63, {code} protected void reorderSchedulableEntity(S schedulableEntity) { //remove, update comparable data, and reinsert to update position in order schedulableEntities.remove(schedulableEntity); updateSchedulingResourceUsage( schedulableEntity.getSchedulingResourceUsage()); schedulableEntities.add(schedulableEntity); } {code} This method tries to remove the schedulableEntity first and then reinsert it so as to reorder the set. However, the changes of the schedulableEntity should be done in the middle of the above two operations. But the comparator of the class is not clear, so we don't know which attributes of the schedulableEntity was changed. If we changed the schedulableEntity outside the method and then inform the orderingPolicy that we made such a change, the operation schedulableEntities.remove(schedulableEntity) would not work correctly since the element of a TreeSet is identified by comparator. Any implement class of this abstract class should overwrite this method, but few does. Another choice is that we make modification of a schedulableEntity manually, but we mustn't forget to reorder the set when we do so and must remember the order: remove, modify the attributes(used for comparing), insert, or use an iterator to mark the schedulableEntity so that we can remove and reinsert it correctly. YARN-897 is an example that we fell into the trap. If the comparator become complex in future, e.g., we consider other types of resources in comparator, such traps will be more and disperse anywhere, which makes it easy to let a TreeSet become a un-sorted state. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3553) TreeSet is not a nice container for organizing schedulableEntities.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3553?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14522495#comment-14522495 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3553: -- [~xinxianyin], I think what you mentioned is a valid point, but it should be already resolved by {{updateSchedulingResourceUsage}}. When we reorder application, we will first remove it from TreeSet, call {{updateSchedulingResourceUsage}} to update it's cached demand/usage, and reinsert it back to TreeSet. And FairComparator also uses cached demand/pending to compare two applications. If SchedulableEntity doesn't touch cached fields (it shouldn't touch), and TreeSet uses cached fields to compare items, this problem isn't existed, do you agree? +[~cwelch] TreeSet is not a nice container for organizing schedulableEntities. --- Key: YARN-3553 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3553 Project: Hadoop YARN Issue Type: Wish Components: scheduler Reporter: Xianyin Xin For TreeSet, element is identified by comparator, not the object reference. If any *attributes that used for comparing two elements* of an specific element is modified by other methods, the TreeSet will be in an un-sorted state, and cannot become sorted forever except that we reconstruct another TreeSet with the elements. To avoid this, one must be *very careful* when they try to modify the attributes (such as increase or decrease the used capacity of a schedulabeEntity) of an object. An example in AbstractComparatorOrderingPolicy.java, Line63, {code} protected void reorderSchedulableEntity(S schedulableEntity) { //remove, update comparable data, and reinsert to update position in order schedulableEntities.remove(schedulableEntity); updateSchedulingResourceUsage( schedulableEntity.getSchedulingResourceUsage()); schedulableEntities.add(schedulableEntity); } {code} This method tries to remove the schedulableEntity first and then reinsert it so as to reorder the set. However, the changes of the schedulableEntity should be done in the middle of the above two operations. But the comparator of the class is not clear, so we don't know which attributes of the schedulableEntity was changed. If we changed the schedulableEntity outside the method and then inform the orderingPolicy that we made such a change, the operation schedulableEntities.remove(schedulableEntity) would not work correctly since the element of a TreeSet is identified by comparator. Any implement class of this abstract class should overwrite this method, but few does. Another choice is that we make modification of a schedulableEntity manually, but we mustn't forget to reorder the set when we do so and must remember the order: remove, modify the attributes(used for comparing), insert, or use an iterator to mark the schedulableEntity so that we can remove and reinsert it correctly. YARN-897 is an example that we fell into the trap. If the comparator become complex in future, e.g., we consider other types of resources in comparator, such traps will be more and disperse anywhere, which makes it easy to let a TreeSet become a un-sorted state. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)