Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3026:

bq. So there is no need for ParentQueue.assignContainers to copy 
excessReservation field, right?
Hmm.. it's a very good point. Before this patch, we don't have this 
requirement, since excessReservation will be only set when doing reservation 
allocation. And with this patch, we set excessReservation when we don't do 
reservation allocation (for example, continuous-reservation-looking).

To your question, you're correct, we don't need the test before the patch, but 
we need it now.

Thanks for looking at this!

> Move application-specific container allocation logic from LeafQueue to 
> FiCaSchedulerApp
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: YARN-3026
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3026
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: capacityscheduler
>            Reporter: Wangda Tan
>            Assignee: Wangda Tan
>             Fix For: 2.8.0
>         Attachments: YARN-3026.1.patch, YARN-3026.2.patch, YARN-3026.3.patch, 
> YARN-3026.4.patch, YARN-3026.5.patch, YARN-3026.6.patch
> Have a discussion with [~vinodkv] and [~jianhe]: 
> In existing Capacity Scheduler, all allocation logics of and under LeafQueue 
> are located in LeafQueue.java in implementation. To make a cleaner scope of 
> LeafQueue, we'd better move some of them to FiCaSchedulerApp.
> Ideal scope of LeafQueue should be: when a LeafQueue receives some resources 
> from ParentQueue (like 15% of cluster resource), and it distributes resources 
> to children apps, and it should be agnostic to internal logic of children 
> apps (like delayed-scheduling, etc.). IAW, LeafQueue shouldn't decide how 
> application allocating container from given resources.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to