----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55357/ -----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for Aurora, David McLaughlin, Joshua Cohen, Stephan Erb, and Zameer Manji. Bugs: AURORA-1867 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1867 Repository: aurora Description ------- To be fair, PendingTaskProcessor interleaves tasks from different groups. However, this fairness comes at the price of increasing reservation time. Even if reservations are being made for the same task group, the processor would still restart iterating through slaves for each task instance. This results in reevaluating all slaves already rejected in a previous search before it finds a new viable candidate. This patch improves `PendingTaskProcessor` performance by reducing slave search/evaluation time, at the cost of reduced fairness. `PendingTaskProcessor` now does reservation for a configurable maximum of _N_ candidates per task group in each iteration over the list of slaves. Diffs ----- src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/SchedulingBenchmarks.java fa37236e68657b539b182519b9d46d96d5b0953a src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/preemptor/PendingTaskProcessor.java f59f3fd8959b1ba3726b55a2943fb9228a049ac5 src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/preemptor/PreemptorMetrics.java 67822cafbe89f4798b4ea6da3856663cc4872798 src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/preemptor/PreemptorModule.java 23d1c120657d5cb9d294a80c63e8a04512d361ca src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/preemptor/PendingTaskProcessorTest.java d11ae5883f2a00dca4c4b36f0ab58ea95c7ecb2e src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/preemptor/PreemptorModuleTest.java 67b6d69e3ddd1028dfe9ff451b171cd888674920 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55357/diff/ Testing ------- As is, the cluster setup in our existing preemption benchmark does not reflect the improvements resulting from this patch. Currently, all existing victims can be preempted, therefore all `PendingTaskProcessor` has to is look at the next slave. ``` BEFORE Benchmark (numPendingTasks) Mode Cnt Score Error Units SchedulingBenchmarks.PreemptorSlotSearchBenchmark.runBenchmark 1 thrpt 10 75.386 ± 2.984 ops/s SchedulingBenchmarks.PreemptorSlotSearchBenchmark.runBenchmark 10 thrpt 10 74.584 ± 2.598 ops/s SchedulingBenchmarks.PreemptorSlotSearchBenchmark.runBenchmark 100 thrpt 10 79.731 ± 2.182 ops/s SchedulingBenchmarks.PreemptorSlotSearchBenchmark.runBenchmark 1000 thrpt 10 66.386 ± 1.833 ops/s AFTER Benchmark (numPendingTasks) Mode Cnt Score Error Units SchedulingBenchmarks.PreemptorSlotSearchBenchmark.runBenchmark 1 thrpt 10 78.266 ± 3.290 ops/s SchedulingBenchmarks.PreemptorSlotSearchBenchmark.runBenchmark 10 thrpt 10 76.743 ± 2.073 ops/s SchedulingBenchmarks.PreemptorSlotSearchBenchmark.runBenchmark 100 thrpt 10 75.343 ± 1.943 ops/s SchedulingBenchmarks.PreemptorSlotSearchBenchmark.runBenchmark 1000 thrpt 10 68.284 ± 2.413 ops/s ``` I need to further imprpve the cluster setup for this benchmark to reflect the improvements in the patch. A more representative cluster setup would be one in which only a subset of potential victims pass `PreemptionVictimFilter.filterPreemptionVictims()` test. Thanks, Mehrdad Nurolahzade