[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2009?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15577129#comment-15577129
]
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
{{noformat}}
if (Resources.lessThan(rc, clusterResource,
Resources.subtract(tmpApp.getUsed(), preemtableFromApp),
tmpApp.getAMUsed())) {
Resources.subtractFrom(preemtableFromApp, tmpApp.getAMUsed());
}
{{noformat}}
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
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
