[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2009?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15507832#comment-15507832
 ] 

Eric Payne commented on YARN-2009:
----------------------------------

{quote}
In my above example, the #active_users is 2 instead of 3 (because B has no more 
pending resource). The reason why it uses #active-user is: existing user-limit 
is used to balance available resource to active users, it doesn't consider the 
needs to re-balance (via preemption) usages of users. To make intra-queue user 
limit preemption can correctly balance usages between users, we need to fix the 
scheduling logic as well.
{quote}
I see. I wasn't suggesting that preemption should balance all users, only those 
that are asking.
{quote}
{code}
...
    for app in sort-by-fifo-or-priority(apps) {
       if (user-to-allocated.get(app.user) < user-limit-resource) {
            app.allocated = min(app.used + pending, user-limit-resource - 
user-to-allocated.get(app.user));
            user-to-allocated.get(app.user) += app.allocated;
...
{code}
{quote}
Yes, that would work. Thanks.

> Priority support for preemption in ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-2009
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2009
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: capacityscheduler
>            Reporter: Devaraj K
>            Assignee: Sunil G
>         Attachments: YARN-2009.0001.patch, YARN-2009.0002.patch
>
>
> While preempting containers based on the queue ideal assignment, we may need 
> to consider preempting the low priority application containers first.



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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Reply via email to