[
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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
