-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/55357/#review161598
-----------------------------------------------------------



@ReviewBot retry

- Stephan Erb


On Jan. 11, 2017, 5:48 p.m., Mehrdad Nurolahzade wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/55357/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 11, 2017, 5:48 p.m.)
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>

Reply via email to