[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15014372#comment-15014372 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3769: -- [~eepayne], thanks for update, could you check test failures of latest patch? It seems TestLeafQueue is still failing. > Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user > limit > - > > Key: YARN-3769 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Bug > Components: capacityscheduler >Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 >Reporter: Eric Payne >Assignee: Eric Payne > Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch, > YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.003.patch, > YARN-3769-branch-2.7.005.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.006.patch, > YARN-3769-branch-2.7.007.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, > YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch, YARN-3769.003.patch, YARN-3769.004.patch, > YARN-3769.005.patch > > > We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and > then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. > This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15014488#comment-15014488
]
Eric Payne commented on YARN-3769:
--
Thanks, [~leftnoteasy], but I'm not seeing failures in {{TestLeafQueue}}:
-
-
[hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager-jdk1.8.0_66.txt|https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9726/artifact/patchprocess/patch-unit-hadoop-yarn-project_hadoop-yarn_hadoop-yarn-server_hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager-jdk1.8.0_66.txt]
{noformat}
Running
org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.scheduler.capacity.TestLeafQueue
Tests run: 26, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 26.435 sec -
in
org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.scheduler.capacity.TestLeafQueue
{noformat}
-
-
[hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager-jdk1.7.0_85.txt|https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9726/artifact/patchprocess/patch-unit-hadoop-yarn-project_hadoop-yarn_hadoop-yarn-server_hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager-jdk1.7.0_85.txt]
{noformat}
Running
org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.scheduler.capacity.TestLeafQueue
Tests run: 26, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 22.957 sec -
in
org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.scheduler.capacity.TestLeafQueue
{noformat}
> Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
> limit
> -
>
> Key: YARN-3769
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacityscheduler
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
>Reporter: Eric Payne
>Assignee: Eric Payne
> Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch,
> YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.003.patch,
> YARN-3769-branch-2.7.005.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.006.patch,
> YARN-3769-branch-2.7.007.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch,
> YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch, YARN-3769.003.patch, YARN-3769.004.patch,
> YARN-3769.005.patch
>
>
> We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
> then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
> This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15012536#comment-15012536
]
Hadoop QA commented on YARN-3769:
-
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 9s
{color} | {color:blue} docker + precommit patch detected. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 2 new or modified test
files. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 12m
28s {color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 27s
{color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 30s
{color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed with JDK v1.7.0_85 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
20s {color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 0m 36s
{color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
17s {color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m 16s
{color} | {color:red}
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager
in branch-2.7 has 1 extant Findbugs warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 24s
{color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 25s
{color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed with JDK v1.7.0_85 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 0m
33s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 30s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 30s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 29s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_85 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 29s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red} 0m 14s
{color} | {color:red} Patch generated 3 new checkstyle issues in
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager
(total was 1080, now 1082). {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 0m 36s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
15s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} whitespace {color} | {color:red} 0m 2s
{color} | {color:red} The patch has 2798 line(s) that end in whitespace. Use
git apply --whitespace=fix. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} whitespace {color} | {color:red} 1m 14s
{color} | {color:red} The patch has 127 line(s) with tabs. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 1m
23s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 21s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 25s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_85 {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 52m 36s {color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed with JDK
v1.8.0_66. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 53m 23s {color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed with JDK
v1.7.0_85. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} asflicense {color} | {color:red} 49m 19s
{color} | {color:red} Patch generated 72 ASF License warnings. {color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 179m 37s {color}
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| JDK v1.8.0_66 Failed junit tests |
hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestAMAuthorization |
| |
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15009928#comment-15009928
]
Hadoop QA commented on YARN-3769:
-
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 12s
{color} | {color:blue} docker + precommit patch detected. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 2 new or modified test
files. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
13s {color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 25s
{color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 26s
{color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed with JDK v1.7.0_85 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
16s {color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 0m 31s
{color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
16s {color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m 13s
{color} | {color:red}
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager
in branch-2.7 has 1 extant Findbugs warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 25s
{color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 27s
{color} | {color:green} branch-2.7 passed with JDK v1.7.0_85 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 0m
29s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 25s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 25s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 25s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_85 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 25s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red} 0m 15s
{color} | {color:red} Patch generated 3 new checkstyle issues in
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager
(total was 1075, now 1077). {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 0m 32s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
16s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} whitespace {color} | {color:red} 0m 2s
{color} | {color:red} The patch has 2436 line(s) that end in whitespace. Use
git apply --whitespace=fix. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} whitespace {color} | {color:red} 1m 6s
{color} | {color:red} The patch has 127 line(s) with tabs. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 1m
22s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 24s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 28s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_85 {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 57m 3s {color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed with JDK
v1.8.0_66. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 57m 12s {color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed with JDK
v1.7.0_85. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} asflicense {color} | {color:red} 49m 32s
{color} | {color:red} Patch generated 71 ASF License warnings. {color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 177m 23s {color}
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| JDK v1.8.0_66 Failed junit tests |
hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestClientRMTokens |
| |
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15007083#comment-15007083 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3769: -- [~eepayne], thanks for update: bq. Would it be more efficient to just do the following? ... The problem is getUserResourceLimit is not always updated by scheduler. If a queue is not traversed by scheduler OR apps of a queue-user have long heartbeat interval, the user resource limit could be staled. I found 0005 patch for trunk is computing user-limit every time and 0005 patch for 2.7 is using getUserResourceLimit. Thoughts? > Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user > limit > - > > Key: YARN-3769 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Bug > Components: capacityscheduler >Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 >Reporter: Eric Payne >Assignee: Eric Payne > Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch, > YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.003.patch, > YARN-3769-branch-2.7.005.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, > YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch, YARN-3769.003.patch, YARN-3769.004.patch, > YARN-3769.005.patch > > > We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and > then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. > This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15001722#comment-15001722
]
Hadoop QA commented on YARN-3769:
-
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 9s
{color} | {color:blue} docker + precommit patch detected. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 3 new or modified test
files. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m
14s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 25s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.8.0_60 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 26s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
14s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
16s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 1m
17s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 25s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.8.0_60 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 30s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 0m
30s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 26s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_60 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 26s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 26s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 26s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
12s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
15s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} Patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 1m
23s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 27s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_60 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 32s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 65m 47s {color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed with JDK
v1.8.0_60. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 64m 35s {color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed with JDK
v1.7.0_79. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
26s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 142m 58s {color}
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| JDK v1.8.0_60 Failed junit tests |
hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestClientRMTokens |
| | hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestAMAuthorization |
| | hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestWorkPreservingRMRestart |
| | hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestRM |
| JDK v1.7.0_79 Failed junit tests |
hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestClientRMTokens |
| | hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestAMAuthorization |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=1.7.1 Server=1.7.1
Image:test-patch-base-hadoop-date2015-11-12 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12771905/YARN-3769.005.patch |
| JIRA Issue | YARN-3769 |
| Optional Tests | asflicense javac javadoc mvninstall unit findbugs
checkstyle compile |
| uname | Linux dbfe7410cae9 3.13.0-36-lowlatency #63-Ubuntu SMP PREEMPT Wed
Sep 3 21:56:12
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14996886#comment-14996886
]
Eric Payne commented on YARN-3769:
--
bq. you don't need to do componmentwiseMax here, since minPendingAndPreemptable
<= headroom, and you can use substractFrom to make code simpler.
[~leftnoteasy], you are right, we do know that {{minPendingAndPreemptable <=
headroom}}. Thanks for the catch. I will make those changes.
> Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
> limit
> -
>
> Key: YARN-3769
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacityscheduler
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
>Reporter: Eric Payne
>Assignee: Eric Payne
> Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch,
> YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.003.patch,
> YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch,
> YARN-3769.003.patch, YARN-3769.004.patch
>
>
> We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
> then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
> This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14987842#comment-14987842
]
Eric Payne commented on YARN-3769:
--
Tests {{hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestClientRMTokens}} and
{{hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestAMAuthorization}} are not failing for
me in may own build environment.
> Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
> limit
> -
>
> Key: YARN-3769
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacityscheduler
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
>Reporter: Eric Payne
>Assignee: Eric Payne
> Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch,
> YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.003.patch,
> YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch,
> YARN-3769.003.patch, YARN-3769.004.patch
>
>
> We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
> then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
> This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14988238#comment-14988238
]
Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3769:
--
[~eepayne], Thanks for update.
bq. If you want, we can pull this out and put it as part of a different JIRA so
we can document and discuss that particular flapping situation separately.
I would prefer to make it to be a separate JIRA, since it is a not directly
related fix. Will review PCPP after you separate those changes (since you're OK
with making it separated :))
bq. Yes, you are correct. getHeadroom could be calculating zero headroom when
we don't want it to. And, I agree that we don't need to limit pending resources
to max queue capacity when calculating pending resources. The concern for this
fix is that user limit factor should be considered and limit the pending value.
The max queue capacity will be considered during the offer stage of the
preemption calculations.
I agree with your existing appoarch, user-limit should be capped by max queue
capacity as well.
One nit for LeafQueue changes:
{code}
1534minPendingAndPreemptable =
1535Resources.componentwiseMax(Resources.none(),
1536Resources.subtract(
1537userNameToHeadroom.get(userName),
minPendingAndPreemptable));
1538
{code}
you don't need to do componmentwiseMax here, since minPendingAndPreemptable <=
headroom, and you can use substractFrom to make code simpler.
> Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
> limit
> -
>
> Key: YARN-3769
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacityscheduler
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
>Reporter: Eric Payne
>Assignee: Eric Payne
> Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch,
> YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.003.patch,
> YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch,
> YARN-3769.003.patch, YARN-3769.004.patch
>
>
> We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
> then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
> This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14986219#comment-14986219
]
Hadoop QA commented on YARN-3769:
-
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 9s
{color} | {color:blue} docker + precommit patch detected. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 3 new or modified test
files. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m
37s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 31s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 30s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
14s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
18s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 1m
25s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 30s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 31s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 0m
34s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 29s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 29s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 29s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 29s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red} 0m 14s
{color} | {color:red} Patch generated 1 new checkstyle issues in
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager
(total was 120, now 120). {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
18s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} Patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 1m
37s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 30s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_66 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 32s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 68m 40s {color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed with JDK
v1.8.0_66. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 68m 56s {color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed with JDK
v1.7.0_79. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
37s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 151m 52s {color}
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| JDK v1.8.0_66 Failed junit tests |
hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestClientRMTokens |
| | hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestAMAuthorization |
| JDK v1.7.0_79 Failed junit tests |
hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestClientRMTokens |
| | hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestAMAuthorization |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=1.7.0 Server=1.7.0
Image:test-patch-base-hadoop-date2015-11-02 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12770128/YARN-3769.004.patch |
| JIRA Issue | YARN-3769 |
| Optional Tests | asflicense javac javadoc mvninstall unit findbugs
checkstyle compile |
| uname | Linux bf3c1ee1bf85 3.13.0-36-lowlatency #63-Ubuntu SMP PREEMPT Wed
Sep 3
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14959902#comment-14959902
]
Hadoop QA commented on YARN-3769:
-
\\
\\
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | pre-patch | 17m 21s | Pre-patch trunk compilation is
healthy. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | @author | 0m 0s | The patch does not contain any
@author tags. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | tests included | 0m 0s | The patch appears to
include 3 new or modified test files. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | javac | 8m 5s | There were no new javac warning
messages. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | javadoc | 10m 40s | There were no new javadoc
warning messages. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | release audit | 0m 24s | The applied patch does
not increase the total number of release audit warnings. |
| {color:red}-1{color} | checkstyle | 0m 52s | The applied patch generated 1
new checkstyle issues (total was 145, now 145). |
| {color:green}+1{color} | whitespace | 0m 5s | The patch has no lines that
end in whitespace. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | install | 1m 30s | mvn install still works. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | eclipse:eclipse | 0m 36s | The patch built with
eclipse:eclipse. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | findbugs | 1m 31s | The patch does not introduce
any new Findbugs (version 3.0.0) warnings. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | yarn tests | 57m 50s | Tests passed in
hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager. |
| | | 98m 58s | |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Patch URL |
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12766884/YARN-3769.003.patch |
| Optional Tests | javadoc javac unit findbugs checkstyle |
| git revision | trunk / 8d2d3eb |
| checkstyle |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9461/artifact/patchprocess/diffcheckstylehadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager.txt
|
| hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager test log |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9461/artifact/patchprocess/testrun_hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager.txt
|
| Test Results |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9461/testReport/ |
| Java | 1.7.0_55 |
| uname | Linux asf902.gq1.ygridcore.net 3.13.0-36-lowlatency #63-Ubuntu SMP
PREEMPT Wed Sep 3 21:56:12 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Console output |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9461/console |
This message was automatically generated.
> Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
> limit
> -
>
> Key: YARN-3769
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacityscheduler
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
>Reporter: Eric Payne
>Assignee: Eric Payne
> Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch,
> YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.003.patch,
> YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch,
> YARN-3769.003.patch
>
>
> We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
> then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
> This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14959698#comment-14959698
]
Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3769:
--
[~eepayne], some quick comments:
- Why this is needed? {{MAX_PENDING_OVER_CAPACITY}}. I think this could be
problematic, for example, if a queue has capacity = 50, and it's usage is 10
and it has 55 pending resource, if we set MAX_PENDING_OVER_CAPACITY=0.1, the
queue cannot preempt resource from other queue.
- In LeafQueue, it uses getHeadroom() to compute how many resource that the
user can use. But I think it may not correct: getHeadroom is computed by
{code}
* Headroom is:
*min(
*min(userLimit, queueMaxCap) - userConsumed,
*queueMaxLimit - queueUsedResources
* )
{code}
(Please note the actual code is slightly different from the original comment,
it uses queue's MaxLimit instead of queue's Max resource)
One negative example is:
{code}
a (max=100, used=100, configured=100
a.a1 (max=100, used=30, configured=40)
a.a2 (max=100, used=70, configured=60)
{code}
For above queue status, headroom for a.a1 is 0 since queue-a's
{{currentResourceLimit}} is 0.
So instead of using headroom, I think you can use {{computed-user-limit -
user.usage(partition)}} as the headroom. You don't need to consider queue's max
capacity here, since we will consider queue's max capacity at following logic
of PCPP.
Thoughts?
> Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
> limit
> -
>
> Key: YARN-3769
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacityscheduler
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
>Reporter: Eric Payne
>Assignee: Eric Payne
> Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch,
> YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.003.patch,
> YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch,
> YARN-3769.003.patch
>
>
> We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
> then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
> This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14959652#comment-14959652 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3769: -- Sorry [~eepayne] for my late response, will take a look at this issue today. > Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user > limit > - > > Key: YARN-3769 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Bug > Components: capacityscheduler >Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 >Reporter: Eric Payne >Assignee: Eric Payne > Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch, > YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.003.patch, > YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch, > YARN-3769.003.patch > > > We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and > then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. > This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14959699#comment-14959699 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3769: -- Correction: bq. and it's usage is 10 and it has 55 pending resource, Should be: bq. and it's usage is 10 and it has 45 pending resource, > Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user > limit > - > > Key: YARN-3769 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Bug > Components: capacityscheduler >Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 >Reporter: Eric Payne >Assignee: Eric Payne > Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch, > YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769-branch-2.7.003.patch, > YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch, > YARN-3769.003.patch > > > We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and > then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. > This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14947847#comment-14947847 ] Eric Payne commented on YARN-3769: -- Investigating test failures and checkstyle warnings > Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user > limit > - > > Key: YARN-3769 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Bug > Components: capacityscheduler >Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 >Reporter: Eric Payne >Assignee: Eric Payne > Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch, > YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, > YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch > > > We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and > then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. > This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14943680#comment-14943680
]
Hadoop QA commented on YARN-3769:
-
\\
\\
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | pre-patch | 17m 30s | Pre-patch branch-2 compilation
is healthy. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | @author | 0m 0s | The patch does not contain any
@author tags. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | tests included | 0m 0s | The patch appears to
include 2 new or modified test files. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | javac | 5m 56s | There were no new javac warning
messages. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | javadoc | 10m 3s | There were no new javadoc
warning messages. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | release audit | 0m 23s | The applied patch does
not increase the total number of release audit warnings. |
| {color:red}-1{color} | checkstyle | 0m 58s | The applied patch generated 6
new checkstyle issues (total was 145, now 150). |
| {color:red}-1{color} | whitespace | 0m 6s | The patch has 26 line(s) that
end in whitespace. Use git apply --whitespace=fix. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | install | 1m 15s | mvn install still works. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | eclipse:eclipse | 0m 33s | The patch built with
eclipse:eclipse. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | findbugs | 1m 28s | The patch does not introduce
any new Findbugs (version 3.0.0) warnings. |
| {color:red}-1{color} | yarn tests | 56m 6s | Tests failed in
hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager. |
| | | 94m 23s | |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed unit tests |
hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.scheduler.fair.TestAllocationFileLoaderService
|
| |
hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.monitor.capacity.TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyForNodePartitions
|
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Patch URL |
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12765015/YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch
|
| Optional Tests | javadoc javac unit findbugs checkstyle |
| git revision | branch-2 / d843c50 |
| checkstyle |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9347/artifact/patchprocess/diffcheckstylehadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager.txt
|
| whitespace |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9347/artifact/patchprocess/whitespace.txt
|
| hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager test log |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9347/artifact/patchprocess/testrun_hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager.txt
|
| Test Results |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9347/testReport/ |
| Java | 1.7.0_55 |
| uname | Linux asf906.gq1.ygridcore.net 3.13.0-36-lowlatency #63-Ubuntu SMP
PREEMPT Wed Sep 3 21:56:12 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Console output |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9347/console |
This message was automatically generated.
> Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
> limit
> -
>
> Key: YARN-3769
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacityscheduler
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
>Reporter: Eric Payne
>Assignee: Eric Payne
> Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch,
> YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch,
> YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch
>
>
> We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
> then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
> This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14942487#comment-14942487
]
Hadoop QA commented on YARN-3769:
-
\\
\\
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | patch | 0m 0s | The patch command could not apply
the patch during dryrun. |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Patch URL |
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12764916/YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch
|
| Optional Tests | javadoc javac unit findbugs checkstyle |
| git revision | trunk / 3b85bd7 |
| Console output |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/9341/console |
This message was automatically generated.
> Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
> limit
> -
>
> Key: YARN-3769
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacityscheduler
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
>Reporter: Eric Payne
>Assignee: Eric Payne
> Attachments: YARN-3769-branch-2.002.patch,
> YARN-3769-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch,
> YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch
>
>
> We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
> then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
> This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14737684#comment-14737684
]
Eric Payne commented on YARN-3769:
--
Thanks very much [~leftnoteasy]!
I think the above is much more efficient, but I think it needs one small tweak,
On this line:
{code}
userNameToHeadroom.get(app.getUser()) -= app.getPending(partition);
{code}
If {{app.getPending(partition)}} is larger than
{{userNameToHeadroom.get(app.getUser())}}, then
{{userNameToHeadroom.get(app.getUser())}} could easily go negative. I think
what we may want is something like this:
{code}
Map userNameToHeadroom;
Resource userLimit = computeUserLimit(partition);
Resource pendingAndPreemptable = 0;
for (app in apps) {
if (!userNameToHeadroom.contains(app.getUser())) {
userNameToHeadroom.put(app.getUser(), userLimit -
app.getUser().getUsed(partition));
}
Resource minPendingAndPreemptable =
min(userNameToHeadroom.get(app.getUser()), app.getPending(partition));
pendingAndPreemptable += minPendingAndPreemptable;
userNameToHeadroom.get(app.getUser()) -= minPendingAndPreemptable;
}
return pendingAndPreemptable;
{code}
Also, I will work on adding a test case.
> Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
> limit
> -
>
> Key: YARN-3769
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacityscheduler
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
>Reporter: Eric Payne
>Assignee: Eric Payne
> Attachments: YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch,
> YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch
>
>
> We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
> then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
> This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14728251#comment-14728251
]
Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3769:
--
[~eepayne].
Thanks for working on the patch, the approach general looks good. Few comments
on implementation:
{{getTotalResourcePending}} is misleading, I suggest to rename it to something
like {{getTotalResourcePendingConsideredUserLimit}}, and add a comment to
indicate it will be only used by preemption policy.
And for implementation:
I think it's no need to store a appsPerUser. It will be a O(apps-in-the-queue)
memory cost, and you need O(apps-in-the-queue) insert opertions as well.
Instead, you can do following logic:
{code}
Map userNameToHeadroom;
Resource userLimit = computeUserLimit(partition);
Resource pendingAndPreemptable = 0;
for (app in apps) {
if (!userNameToHeadroom.contains(app.getUser())) {
userNameToHeadroom.put(app.getUser(), userLimit -
app.getUser().getUsed(partition));
}
pendingAndPreemptable += min(userNameToHeadroom.get(app.getUser()),
app.getPending(partition));
userNameToHeadroom.get(app.getUser()) -= app.getPending(partition);
}
return pendingAndPreemptable;
{code}
And could you add a test to verify it works?
> Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
> limit
> -
>
> Key: YARN-3769
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacityscheduler
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
>Reporter: Eric Payne
>Assignee: Eric Payne
> Attachments: YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch,
> YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch
>
>
> We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
> then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
> This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14724031#comment-14724031 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3769: -- Sorry [~eepayne], I didn't make any progress on this :(, assigned this to you. I will create a new JIRA for long term solution. > Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user > limit > - > > Key: YARN-3769 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Bug > Components: capacityscheduler >Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 >Reporter: Eric Payne >Assignee: Eric Payne > Attachments: YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, > YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch > > > We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and > then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. > This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14724431#comment-14724431 ] Eric Payne commented on YARN-3769: -- bq. I didn't make any progress on this, assigned this to you. No problem. Thanks [~leftnoteasy]. > Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user > limit > - > > Key: YARN-3769 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Bug > Components: capacityscheduler >Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 >Reporter: Eric Payne >Assignee: Eric Payne > Attachments: YARN-3769.001.branch-2.7.patch, > YARN-3769.001.branch-2.8.patch > > > We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and > then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. > This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14709856#comment-14709856 ] MENG DING commented on YARN-3769: - [~leftnoteasy], for better tracking purposes, would it be better to update the title of this JIRA to something more general, e.g., *CapacityScheduler: Improve preemption to preempt only those containers that would satisfy the incoming request* (similar to YARN-2154)? This ticket can then be used to address preemption ping-pong issue for both new container request and container resource increase request. Besides the proposal that you have presented, an alternative solution to consider is: once we collect the list of preemptable containers, we immediately have a *dry run* of the scheduling algorithm to match the preemptable resources against outstanding new/increase resource requests. We then only preempt the resources that can find a match. Thoughts? Meng Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit - Key: YARN-3769 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 Project: Hadoop YARN Issue Type: Bug Components: capacityscheduler Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 Reporter: Eric Payne Assignee: Wangda Tan We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14573673#comment-14573673 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3769: -- Thanks [~eepayne], I reassigned it to me, I will upload a design doc shortly for review. Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit - Key: YARN-3769 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 Project: Hadoop YARN Issue Type: Bug Components: capacityscheduler Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 Reporter: Eric Payne Assignee: Wangda Tan We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14573670#comment-14573670 ] Eric Payne commented on YARN-3769: -- [~leftnoteasy] bq. If you think it's fine, could I take a shot at it? It sounds like it would work. It's fine with me if you want to work on that. Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit - Key: YARN-3769 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 Project: Hadoop YARN Issue Type: Bug Components: capacityscheduler Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 Reporter: Eric Payne Assignee: Eric Payne We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14573667#comment-14573667 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3769: -- [~eepayne], Exactly. Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit - Key: YARN-3769 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 Project: Hadoop YARN Issue Type: Bug Components: capacityscheduler Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 Reporter: Eric Payne Assignee: Eric Payne We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14573619#comment-14573619
]
Eric Payne commented on YARN-3769:
--
The following configuration will cause this:
|| queue || capacity || max || pending || used || user limit
| root | 100 | 100 | 40 | 90 | N/A |
| A | 10 | 100 | 20 | 70 | 70 |
| B | 10 | 100 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
One app is running in each queue. Both apps are asking for more resources, but
they have each reached their user limit, so even though both are asking for
more and there are resources available, no more resources are allocated to
either app.
The preemption monitor will see that {{B}} is asking for a lot more resources,
and it will see that {{B}} is more underserved than {{A}}, so the preemption
monitor will try to make the queues balance by preempting resources (10, for
example) from {{A}}.
|| queue || capacity || max || pending || used || user limit
| root | 100 | 100 | 50 | 80 | N/A |
| A | 10 | 100 | 30 | 60 | 70 |
| B | 10 | 100 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
However, when the capacity scheduler tries to give that container to the app in
{{B}}, the app will recognize that it has no headroom, and refuse the
container. So the capacity scheduler offers the container again to the app in
{{A}}, which accepts it because it has headroom now, and the process starts
over again.
Note that this happens even when used cluster resources are below 100% because
the used + pending for the cluster would put it above 100%.
Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
limit
-
Key: YARN-3769
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
Project: Hadoop YARN
Issue Type: Bug
Components: capacityscheduler
Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
Reporter: Eric Payne
Assignee: Eric Payne
We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14573638#comment-14573638 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3769: -- [~eepayne], This is a very interesting problem, actually not only user-limit causes it. For example, fair ordering (YARN-3306), hard locality requirements (I want resources from rackA and nodeX only), AM resource limit; In the near future we can have constraints (YARN-3409), all can lead to resource is preempted from one queue, but the other queue cannot use it because of specific resource requirement and limits. One thing I've thought for a while is adding a lazy preemption mechanism, which is: when a container is marked preempted and wait for max_wait_before_time, it becomes a can_be_killed container. If there's another queue can allocate on a node with can_be_killed container, such container will be killed immediately to make room the new containers. This mechanism can make preemption policy doesn't need to consider complex resource requirements and limits inside a queue, and also it can avoid kill unnecessary containers. If you think it's fine, could I take a shot at it? Thoughts? [~vinodkv]. Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit - Key: YARN-3769 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769 Project: Hadoop YARN Issue Type: Bug Components: capacityscheduler Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0 Reporter: Eric Payne Assignee: Eric Payne We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A. This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-3769) Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user limit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14573664#comment-14573664
]
Eric Payne commented on YARN-3769:
--
[~leftnoteasy],
{quote}
One thing I've thought for a while is adding a lazy preemption mechanism,
which is: when a container is marked preempted and wait for
max_wait_before_time, it becomes a can_be_killed container. If there's
another queue can allocate on a node with can_be_killed container, such
container will be killed immediately to make room the new containers.
{quote}
IIUC, in your proposal, the preemption monitor would mark the containers as
preemptable, and then after some configurable wait period, the capacity
scheduler would be the one to do the killing if it finds that it needs the
resources on that node. Is my understanding correct?
Preemption occurring unnecessarily because preemption doesn't consider user
limit
-
Key: YARN-3769
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3769
Project: Hadoop YARN
Issue Type: Bug
Components: capacityscheduler
Affects Versions: 2.6.0, 2.7.0, 2.8.0
Reporter: Eric Payne
Assignee: Eric Payne
We are seeing the preemption monitor preempting containers from queue A and
then seeing the capacity scheduler giving them immediately back to queue A.
This happens quite often and causes a lot of churn.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
