Sunil G commented on YARN-2009:

Thanks [~eepayne]
I also ran into a similar point yesterday and found root cause is because we 
subtract {{tmpApp.getAMUsed()}}. 

I found a solution to have something similar to 
      if (Resources.lessThan(rc, clusterResource,
            Resources.subtract(tmpApp.getUsed(), preemtableFromApp),
            tmpApp.getAMUsed())) {
        Resources.subtractFrom(preemtableFromApp, tmpApp.getAMUsed());

I think this can be placed in 
{{FifoIntraQueuePreemptionPlugin.validateOutSameAppPriorityFromDemand}}, so we 
can ensure that we will deduct AMUsed only when one app's resource is needed 
fully for preemption. Else we may not needed to consider the same. I am 
preparing for UTs also to cover this cases.

> 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, 
> YARN-2009.0003.patch, YARN-2009.0004.patch, YARN-2009.0005.patch, 
> YARN-2009.0006.patch, YARN-2009.0007.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

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