----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/#review168318 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/master/quota_handler.cpp Lines 70 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/#comment240536> What do you think of introducing a `QuotaTree` with which we can encapsulate all this stuff? Something like: ```cpp class QuotaTree { QuotaTree() = default; Try<Nothing> insert(const string& role, const Quota& quota) const { // basically the body of `foreachpair` in `buildQuotaTree` + validation. } Resources total() const; private: class Node { ... }; unique_ptr<Node> root; }; Try<QuotaTree> buildQuotaTree(const hashmap<string, Quota>& quotas) { QuotaTree result; foreachpair (cons string& role, const Quota& quota, quotas) { Try<Nothing> insert = result.insert(role, quota); if (insert.isError()) { return Error("Failed to build quota tree" + insert.error()); } } return result; } ``` This way we could also keep a running `quotaTree` rather than a `quotaMap` and rebuilding the `quotaTree` when we need it. Perhaps a minor point. Even if we want to simply keep what we have in this patch, I think having a: ```cpp class QuotaTree { QuotaTree(const hashmap<string, Quota>&); Option<Error> validate() const; Resources total() const; // private stuff... }; ``` could simplify the usage a little bit. src/master/quota_handler.cpp Lines 78 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/#comment240532> The general pattern for `validate` I think is to return an `Option<Error>`. In this case, we could more accurately report what/where the invalid relationship is within the tree. src/master/quota_handler.cpp Lines 87-89 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/#comment240533> We can just use the `Resources` implicit constructor here. ```cpp childResources += child->quota.info.guarantee() ``` src/master/quota_handler.cpp Lines 92-95 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/#comment240534> Ditto. ```cpp selfResources = quota.info.guarantee() ``` src/master/quota_handler.cpp Lines 102 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/#comment240535> Is `quotas` meant to be taken by value here? - Michael Park On Feb. 28, 2017, 12:23 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 28, 2017, 12:23 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Michael Park. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The quota'd resources for a nested role are "included" within the > quota'd resources for that role's parent. Hence, the quota of a node > must always be greater than or equal to the sum of the quota'd resources > of that role's children. > > When creating and removing quota, we must ensure that this invariant is > not violated. > > When computing the cluster capacity heuristic, we must ensure that we do > not "double-count" quota'd resources: e.g., if the cluster has a total > capacity of 100 cpus, role "x" has a quota guarantee of 60 CPUs, and > role "x/y" has a quota guarantee of 55 CPUs, this does NOT violate the > cluster capacity heuristic. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/quota_handler.cpp 3ad28e4a9363a877d0610b529a6c17fb30ece37a > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > cdf1f15b7802439b28405ca8f6634ce83e886630 > src/tests/master_quota_tests.cpp 91219d6693fdd119ed3b0bf734eaa55da9c58b0a > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
