[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2933?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14279056#comment-14279056
 ] 

Mayank Bansal commented on YARN-2933:
-------------------------------------

Thanks [~jianhe] and [~wangda] for the review

bq. looks good overall, we should use priority.AMCONTAINER here ?

It was Confusing by name , I changed the names and updated accordingly.

bq. it's better to use enum type instead of int in mockContainer, which can 
avoid call getValue() from enum.
Priority is been override in multiple tests differently so didn't want to 
change the signature of the functions, Moreover its same.

Uploading the updated patch

Thanks,
Mayank

> Capacity Scheduler preemption policy should only consider capacity without 
> labels temporarily
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-2933
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2933
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: capacityscheduler
>            Reporter: Wangda Tan
>            Assignee: Mayank Bansal
>         Attachments: YARN-2933-1.patch, YARN-2933-2.patch, YARN-2933-3.patch, 
> YARN-2933-4.patch, YARN-2933-5.patch, YARN-2933-6.patch, YARN-2933-7.patch, 
> YARN-2933-8.patch
>
>
> Currently, we have capacity enforcement on each queue for each label in 
> CapacityScheduler, but we don't have preemption policy to support that. 
> YARN-2498 is targeting to support preemption respect node labels, but we have 
> some gaps in code base, like queues/FiCaScheduler should be able to get 
> usedResource/pendingResource, etc. by label. These items potentially need to 
> refactor CS which we need spend some time carefully think about.
> For now, what immediately we can do is allow calculate ideal_allocation and 
> preempt containers only for resources on nodes without labels, to avoid 
> regression like: A cluster has some nodes with labels and some not, assume 
> queueA isn't satisfied for resource without label, but for now, preemption 
> policy may preempt resource from nodes with labels for queueA, that is not 
> correct.
> Again, it is just a short-term enhancement, YARN-2498 will consider 
> preemption respecting node-labels for Capacity Scheduler which is our final 
> target. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to