> On Jan. 29, 2017, 12:02 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > It took me a while trying to figure out what the invariants of `Resources` > > and `Offer::Operation` are, but I think I have a grasp of it. > > > > - We have `recovered.apply(operation);` where we have `recovered` and > > `operation` both with unallocated resources. (after `recovered` adjustment) > > - We have a few `offeredResources.apply(operation);` where we have > > `offeredResources` and `operation` both with resources allocated to a > > single role. (after `operation` adjustment) > > - We also have `totalResources.apply(operation);` where we have > > `totalResources` with unallocated resources, and `operation` with resources > > allocated to a single role. (case 2 helps us with this) > > > > It seems to me like we really end up with resources allocated to > > __multiple__ roles if we were to allow accepting multiple offers from > > multiple roles. > > That is, currently the resources in `Resources` and `Offer::Operation` are > > either all unallocated, or all allocated to one role. > > > > Is this accurate?
Ah, I was wrong about `Resources`. It can hold resources that are allocated to multiple roles. I was correct about `Offer::Operation`, however. In that they can only be unallocated or allocated to one role. - Michael ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55828/#review163320 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 23, 2017, 2:47 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/55828/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 23, 2017, 2:47 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Jay Guo, Guangya Liu, and Michael > Park. > > > Bugs: MESOS-6967 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6967 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Previously, `Resource` did not contain `AllocationInfo`. So for > backwards compatibility with old schedulers and tooling, we must > allow operations to contain `Resource`s without an allocation role. > The two interesting cases for adjusting the operation's resource are: > > (1) The operation `Resource` does not contain an `AllocationInfo` > but is being applied to an allocated `Resources`. We allow this > only if the operation is unambiguous, that is, the allocated > `Resources` are only allocated to a single role. > > (2) The operation `Resource` contains an `AllocationInfo` but is > being applied to an unallocated `Resources`. In this case we > simply ignore the `AllocationInfo` of the `Resource`. > > Note that we assume no `Resources` store a mix of allocated and > unallocated resources. This is a brittle assumption that we should > have enforcement for. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/common/resources.cpp be9bca2063e9f0e60c5faa0142077bea56272e45 > src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 8dfb1be35d9f9c6ff69139d055c6b3d3ec475e68 > src/tests/resources_utils.hpp 18dcca7f171102df8fe88f10785f70c5d1cf5b32 > src/v1/resources.cpp da4701c03020ff9c33ef995cd0af437d8827c267 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55828/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Added a test. > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Mahler > >
