[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16314218#comment-16314218
]
Wangda Tan commented on YARN-6599:
----------------------------------
Thanks [~asuresh] for reviewing this.
bq. I think you should keep the name of the main entry point method as
canSatisfyConstraints.
I can rename canSatisfySingleConstraint to canSatisfyConstraints, but it seems
that we still need a separate method. In this patch, we need to pass in
PlacementConstraint directly. Are you fine with this?
bq. Shouldnt you have to do the checkMinCardinality in all cases ?
No, if minCardinality = 0, we don't need to check it at all.
bq. Can we split the node-partition target expression handling aspect into a
separate JIRA maybe ?
I would prefer not, there're only a few logics related to partition handling.
Splitting this logic cannot help reduce the size of the patch.
bq. To check if the given constraint is a SingleConstraint, you should use the
transformer first before doing a type cast.
This part I do not quite understand, could you explain a bit? And another
question is I'm using following logic to copy SchedulingRequest, is it correct?
{code}
396 this.schedulingRequest = new SchedulingRequestPBImpl(
397 ((SchedulingRequestPBImpl) newSchedulingRequest).getProto());
{code}
bq. Can we target this JIRA for just intra-app anti-affinity.
I'm open about this, could you respond to my comment below?
bq. I am also not really sold on the application-id/allocation-tag format yet.
I'm open to any feedbacks on this. I think this is documented in our design doc
attached to YARN-6592. Check chapter "Applying constraints during scheduling".
We have to include anti-affinity to a specific app in this patch to support
intra-app anti-affinity. This is because by default allocation-tag specified
inside PlacementConstraint should take account of tags from all apps. Are you
fine with anti-affinity to its own application by using the syntax I proposed
in the patch? (The only different between my implementation and design doc is
my impl includes a prefix).
Also, I'm not sure what is the SELF as target type means, does it mean the same
app/priority+allocationId/SchedulingRequest? It is not part of design doc, I'm
not sure what's the reason to include it.
> Support rich placement constraints in scheduler
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-6599
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6599
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Wangda Tan
> Assignee: Wangda Tan
> Attachments: YARN-6599-YARN-6592.003.patch,
> YARN-6599-YARN-6592.004.patch, YARN-6599-YARN-6592.005.patch,
> YARN-6599-YARN-6592.006.patch, YARN-6599-YARN-6592.007.patch,
> YARN-6599-YARN-6592.008.patch, YARN-6599-YARN-6592.wip.002.patch,
> YARN-6599.poc.001.patch
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
