[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2933?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14283878#comment-14283878 ]
Hudson commented on YARN-2933: ------------------------------ SUCCESS: Integrated in Hadoop-Hdfs-trunk #2011 (See [https://builds.apache.org/job/Hadoop-Hdfs-trunk/2011/]) YARN-2933. Capacity Scheduler preemption policy should only consider capacity without labels temporarily. Contributed by Mayank Bansal (wangda: rev 0a2d3e717d9c42090a32ff177991a222a1e34132) * hadoop-yarn-project/CHANGES.txt * hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/resourcemanager/monitor/capacity/ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.java * hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/resourcemanager/monitor/capacity/TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.java > 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 > Fix For: 2.7.0 > > 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, YARN-2933-9.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)