----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#review56016 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/slave.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment96370> why the change here? is it possible for pending[executorId] to be empty() if you didn't erase the task just above? i would revert this. src/tests/slave_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment96505> why this change? src/tests/slave_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment96506> How can removeFramework() be called twice!!!???? Wouldn't that throw a CHECK failure? src/slave/slave.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment96511> This seems out of place to me. See my comments below. src/slave/slave.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment96510> It is weird to me that you remove the task here but (potentially) remove the executor up in _runTask(). It's not obvious to me why you made that choice. If there is a good reason, please add a comment here. - Vinod Kone On Oct. 9, 2014, 2:10 p.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 9, 2014, 2:10 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos. > > > Bugs: MESOS-947 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-947 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > Fixes MESOS-947 "Slave should properly handle a killTask() that arrives > between runTask() and _runTask()". > > Slave::killTask() did not check for task in question combination to be > "pending" (i.e. Slave::runTask had happened, but Slave::_runTask had not yet) > and then erroneously assumed that Slave::runTask() had not been executed. The > task was then marked "LOST" instead of "KILLED". But Slave::runTask had > already scheduled Slave::_runTask to follow. Now the entry for being > "pending" is removed, and the task is marked "KILLED", and _runTask gets > informed about this. It checks whether the task in question is currently > "pending" and if it is not, then it infers that the task has been killed and > does not erroneously try to complete launching it. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/slave.hpp 76d505c698774204b2536b66ea8a83a9a2a5e2c1 > src/slave/slave.cpp cb3759993f863590cb1545c73072feb0331aa6c9 > src/tests/mesos.hpp 957e2233cc11c438fd80d3b6d1907a1223093104 > src/tests/mesos.cpp 3dcb2acd5ad4ab5e3a7b4fe524ee077558112773 > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp 69be28f6e82b99e23424bd2be8294f715d8040d4 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Wrote a unit test that reliably created the situation described in the > ticket. Observed that TASK_LOST and the listed log output occurred. This > pointed directly to the lines in killTask() where the problem is rooted. Ran > the test after fixing, it succeeded. Checked the log. It looks like a "clean > kill" now :-) > > > Thanks, > > Bernd Mathiske > >
