[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7373?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Haibo Chen updated YARN-7373:
-----------------------------
Description:
While reviewing YARN-4511, Miklos noticed that
{code:java}
342 // notify schedulerNode of the update to correct resource accounting
343 node.containerUpdated(existingRMContainer, existingContainer);
344
345
((RMContainerImpl)tempRMContainer).setContainer(updatedTempContainer);
346 // notify SchedulerNode of the update to correct resource accounting
347 node.containerUpdated(tempRMContainer, tempContainer);
348
{code}
bq. I think that it would be nicer to lock around these two calls to become
atomic.
Container update, and thus container swap as part of that, is atomic according
to [~asuresh].
It'd be nice to discuss this in more details to see if we want to be more
conservative.
was:
While reviewing YARN-4511, Miklos pointed out that
{code:java}
342 // notify schedulerNode of the update to correct resource accounting
343 node.containerUpdated(existingRMContainer, existingContainer);
344
345
((RMContainerImpl)tempRMContainer).setContainer(updatedTempContainer);
346 // notify SchedulerNode of the update to correct resource accounting
347 node.containerUpdated(tempRMContainer, tempContainer);
348
{code}
bq. I think that it would be nicer to lock around these two calls to become
atomic.
> The atomicity of container update in RM is not clear
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-7373
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7373
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: resourcemanager
> Reporter: Haibo Chen
> Assignee: Haibo Chen
>
> While reviewing YARN-4511, Miklos noticed that
> {code:java}
> 342 // notify schedulerNode of the update to correct resource accounting
> 343 node.containerUpdated(existingRMContainer, existingContainer);
> 344
> 345
> ((RMContainerImpl)tempRMContainer).setContainer(updatedTempContainer);
> 346 // notify SchedulerNode of the update to correct resource accounting
> 347 node.containerUpdated(tempRMContainer, tempContainer);
> 348
> {code}
> bq. I think that it would be nicer to lock around these two calls to become
> atomic.
> Container update, and thus container swap as part of that, is atomic
> according to [~asuresh].
> It'd be nice to discuss this in more details to see if we want to be more
> conservative.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
