> On Dec. 15, 2015, 1:56 a.m., Adam B wrote: > > src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp, lines 1016-1031 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41075/diff/6/?file=1163905#file1163905line1016> > > > > If the allocator's roleSorter doesn't know about the role (i.e. no > > frameworks are registered with that role), do we still want to make an > > explicit `allocate()` call on a SetQuota request for that role? Will > > setting quota on an unregistered role have any impact on the fair shares of > > other frameworks? > > Neil Conway wrote: > It is possible for `roleSorter` to not know about the role but for > `quotaRoleSorter` to know about it -- i.e., if the role has a configured > quota but no active frameworks. In general, I can imagine circumstances in > which we would still want to call `allocate()` here (e.g., if we end up > revoking/rescinding offers to non-quota frameworks to preserve resources > needed by a quota'd role). Perhaps AlexR can comment? > > Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > Once quota is set for a role, the next `allocate()` call will lay away > resources. I think Adam means that we do not necessarily need to allocate > straight away because there are no consumers (no active frameworks in the > quota'ed role) of these resources. Hence though quota on an unregistered role > (I assume it means a role without any frameworks) does impact other > frameworks, we should not necessarily rush with `allocate()`. > > However, does it make sense to introduce a condition here? What is the > advantage? One extra `allocate()` call should not be a big deal, since set > quota operation won't happen that often. So even Adam has the point, I would > leave the code as is for readability.
"Adam means that we do not necessarily need to allocate straight away because there are no consumers" That is indeed what I meant. "One extra allocate() call should not be a big deal... I would leave the code as is for readability." SGTM. Dropping the issue. > On Dec. 15, 2015, 1:56 a.m., Adam B wrote: > > src/master/http.cpp, line 316 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41075/diff/6/?file=1163906#file1163906line316> > > > > I'm in agreement with Yong. This form of `model(role, name, weight)` > > isn't used anywhere, and is confusing alongside `modelRole(roleName, > > weight, Option<role>)`. Remove it and rename the other one to fit the > > `model(...)` pattern. > > Neil Conway wrote: > Whoops, this version of `model(role, name, weight)` was included > accidentally (it is from an old version of the patch). Will remove. > > I'm not sure that changing `modelRole()` to use the `model(...)` naming > pattern is the right thing to do: the pattern is that `model(X)` returns a > JSON object modeled after `X`. In this case, the parameters will be `string > name, double weight, Option<Role*>`, so (a) it doesn't quite fit (b) from the > function name + arguments, it is a little unclear that `model(string name, > double weight, Option<Role*>)` is supposed to do. Although precedent exists, I would agree that it is also unclear what the following existing `model(...)` call is supposed to do: JSON::Object model( const TaskInfo& task, const FrameworkID& frameworkId, const TaskState& state, const std::vector<TaskStatus>& statuses); > On Dec. 15, 2015, 1:56 a.m., Adam B wrote: > > src/master/http.cpp, lines 1601-1602 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41075/diff/6/?file=1163906#file1163906line1601> > > > > Why do you list unregistered roles with quota configured, if you don't > > model/display their quota? > > If you think quota (and roles configured for quota) should show up in > > `/roles`, file a JIRA and we'll do it all right in one pass. > > Neil Conway wrote: > This was per discussion with AlexR. The idea is that, previously, > "/roles" showed all the "potentially interesting" roles: by definition, it > will include any role that has a non-default weight or non-default quota. > With implicit roles, we want to show the same set of roles that have > configured properties. > > Whether we show a role with configured quota is separate from whether we > show quota information about any of the roles. For the latter, not sure if we > want that information in "/roles", quota-related endpoints, or both. In any > case, seems fine to defer this part of it. > > Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > That's correct. Let me repeat my argument one more time: once a quota > becomes "whitelisted" or, I prefer, "visible", we should show it in "/roles" > to make operator's life easier. If an operator sets a quota for a role, they > should see this role in "/roles", otherwise it becomes very tedious to track > all "whitelisted" roles and potential typos. Fair enough. Dropping this issue. Just make sure that ROLES_HELP accurately explains this. I'll open a separate issue for that. - Adam ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41075/#review110449 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 16, 2015, 1:08 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/41075/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 16, 2015, 1:08 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B, Alexander Rukletsov, Benjamin Hindman, Greg > Mann, and Yongqiao Wang. > > > Bugs: MESOS-4085 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4085 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Changed the behavior of the master when the `--roles` flag is NOT > specified. Previously, this would allow only the `*` role to be used. Now, > omitting `--roles` means that any role can be used. This is called "implicit > roles". Configuring which principals can perform operations as which roles > should be done using ACLs in the authorization system. > > Note that this changes the behavior of the system when `--roles` is not > specified. This is likely acceptable: if the operator didn't specify `--roles` > in prior versions of Mesos, they were likely not using roles or authorization > at > that time. > > Another minor behavioral change is that the "/roles" endpoint will now only > return results for currently "active" roles (those with one or more registered > frameworks). > > The `--roles` flag is now considered deprecated and will be removed in a > future > version of Mesos. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/master/allocator.hpp 619ef01c3a7d640560653cfc1838dd09046d1da0 > include/mesos/master/allocator.proto > 702f56f56c3b1331613cecf26522986f6b572f8c > src/master/allocator/mesos/allocator.hpp > 97ee80726ad155917811265a983258b0165d3451 > src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.hpp > 99c742906874c30c39c159e58a65277ade3c07fd > src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp > 5da825a1d578a9ee40b4985378fddb3c5fb3b416 > src/master/http.cpp 8dfd67f7d51b8395953d6beb77b2d71bc538eacd > src/master/master.hpp 9aa548aa6e159046c94e4ec96f631ea8b3bfd5d8 > src/master/master.cpp 0d1482279c68f2a4a27dabaf28774769a5d515c4 > src/master/quota_handler.cpp 11167879b2480d9c8dd6398ca39c479089ec2272 > src/tests/allocator.hpp c7670525765491fe931a4ee38446fa7e9d79af42 > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > e239b4746494fcc2b362a83afb634a2ce5e25f9b > src/tests/master_quota_tests.cpp 0473869783a714766ed26fff61d7f8c56342df74 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41075/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > "make check" on OSX 10.10 and Ubuntu 15.10; `--gtest_repeat=1000` for the > more likely role-related tests. > > TODOs: > > * Add tests for allocation behavior for weights + implicit roles > * More tests for quota + implicit roles? > > Notes: > > * There's two places where we use manual `new`/`delete` where a `unique_ptr` > would probably be nicer. I'm inclined to leave this as-is for now though > (making use of unique_ptr is a broader issue). > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
