[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2009?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15626578#comment-15626578
]
Jian He commented on YARN-2009:
-------------------------------
One question, not sure if this is expected.
This code synchronize on leafQueue object, while we already changed leafQueue
to use read/write lock. should we change to use read lock ? similar thing for
the FifoCandidatesSelector.
{code}
synchronized (leafQueue) {
Iterator<FiCaSchedulerApp> desc = leafQueue.getOrderingPolicy()
.getPreemptionIterator();
while (desc.hasNext()) {
FiCaSchedulerApp app = desc.next();
preemptFromLeastStarvedApp(selectedCandidates, clusterResource,
totalPreemptedResourceAllowed, resToObtainByPartition,
leafQueue, app);
}
}
{code}
> CapacityScheduler: Add intra-queue preemption for app priority support
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-2009
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2009
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: capacityscheduler
> Reporter: Devaraj K
> Assignee: Sunil G
> Labels: oct16-medium
> Fix For: 2.9.0
>
> Attachments: YARN-2009.0001.patch, YARN-2009.0002.patch,
> YARN-2009.0003.patch, YARN-2009.0004.patch, YARN-2009.0005.patch,
> YARN-2009.0006.patch, YARN-2009.0007.patch, YARN-2009.0008.patch,
> YARN-2009.0009.patch, YARN-2009.0010.patch, YARN-2009.0011.patch,
> YARN-2009.0012.patch, YARN-2009.0013.patch, YARN-2009.0014.patch,
> YARN-2009.0015.patch, YARN-2009.0016.patch
>
>
> While preempting containers based on the queue ideal assignment, we may need
> to consider preempting the low priority application containers first.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
