[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4519?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15121063#comment-15121063
]
Wangda Tan commented on YARN-4519:
----------------------------------
[~mding],
It seems to me schedulerHealth doesn't need synchronized lock as well. It will
be eventually consistent, and all maps in schedulerHealth are concurrent map,
so we should expect it is consistent in most of the time.
> potential deadlock of CapacityScheduler between decrease container and assign
> containers
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-4519
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4519
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacityscheduler
> Reporter: sandflee
> Assignee: MENG DING
> Attachments: YARN-4519.1.patch, YARN-4519.2.patch, YARN-4519.3.patch
>
>
> In CapacityScheduler.allocate() , first get FiCaSchedulerApp sync lock, and
> may be get CapacityScheduler's sync lock in decreaseContainer()
> In scheduler thread, first get CapacityScheduler's sync lock in
> allocateContainersToNode(), and may get FiCaSchedulerApp sync lock in
> FicaSchedulerApp.assignContainers().
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
