> On Jan. 8, 2020, 5:43 a.m., Greg Mann wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp > > Lines 3140-3201 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/diff/4/?file=2191535#file2191535line3140> > > > > I think maybe this logic could be easier to read if we do something > > like: > > > > ``` > > auto limitsAreSet = [](const vector<TaskInfo>& tasks) { > > foreach (const TaskInfo& task, tasks) { > > if (!task.limits().empty()) { > > return true; > > } > > } > > > > return false; > > }; > > > > Option<Map<string, Value::Scalar>> executorLimits; > > if (limitsAreSet(tasks)) { > > executorLimits = Map<string, Value::Scalar>(); > > foreach (const TaskInfo& task, tasks) { > > // Add up task limits/requests here. > > } > > } > > ``` > > > > What do you think? > > Qian Zhang wrote: > I am a bit confused how it will simplify the logic here, like: how will > you do the `Add up task limits/requests here`? I guess you still need the > code from L3140 to L3201, right? > > Greg Mann wrote: > Ah sorry, before I answer your question I have another one: currently, > your code will only set the executor's cpu limit if one or more tasks have a > cpu limit set, and will only set the executor's mem limit if one or more > tasks have the memory limit set. However, I think we also want to set the cpu > limit if one or more tasks has a _memory_ limit set, and we want to set the > memory limit if one or more tasks has a _cpu_ limit set, right? This way, if > a single task under an executor sets either a cpu or memory limit, then all > tasks will have both the cpu and memory limit set (and if it wasn't specified > for a particular task, it will be set to the default, which is the value of > the request). > > Qian Zhang wrote: > So if a framework launches two tasks (t1 and t2) with a same executor, t1 > has CPU limit specified but no memory limit specified, t2 has both of the CPU > and memory limits not specified, then we should not only set CPU hard limit > but also the memory hard limit (i.e., set it to t1's memory request + t2's > memory request) in the executor container's cgroups, right? I think we have > already done it because executor's resource requests always includes all > task's resource requests (see L3209 in this patch > https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/diff/6 ), and in the memory cgroups > (`memory.cpp`) we will set the executor container's memory hard limit > (`memory.limit_in_bytes`) to its memory request if its memory limit is not > specified (see https://reviews.apache.org/r/71943/ for details). > > And similarly if t1 has memory limit specified but no CPU limit > specified, in the CPU cgroups we will set the executor container's CPU hard > limit (CFS quota) to the executor's CPU request if `--cgroups_enable_cfs` is > true. > > Greg Mann wrote: > > I think we have already done it because executor's resource requests > always includes all task's resource requests (see L3209 in this patch > https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/diff/6 ) > > That works when the executor is first launched, but will it be updated > when additional task groups are sent to the same executor? > > > And similarly if t1 has memory limit specified but no CPU limit > specified, in the CPU cgroups we will set the executor container's CPU hard > limit (CFS quota) to the executor's CPU request if --cgroups_enable_cfs is > true. > > If t1 has a memory limit specified, then don't we want to set the CFS > quota regardless of whether or not the '--cgroups_enable_cfs' flag is set?
> That works when the executor is first launched, but will it be updated when > additional task groups are sent to the same executor? Yes, see https://reviews.apache.org/r/71952/ for details. > If t1 has a memory limit specified, then don't we want to set the CFS quota > regardless of whether or not the '--cgroups_enable_cfs' flag is set? I do not think we want to do it. In that case, there is no CPU limit specified for both t1 and t2 (which means user does not want CPU hard limit set) and CFS quota is disabled via the `--cgroups_enable_cfs` flag, so why do we want to set CFS quota when user does not want it? For memory limit, it is a bit different, the original behavior is we always set both soft limit and hard limit to the memory allocated to the task (i.e. memory request) when launching a container and there is no agent flag to control it. So to keep backward compatibility, we want to set memory hard limit even there is no memory limit specified in the task (i.e., set hard limit to memory request). And what we want to change here is, setting hard limit to a value which is larger than soft limit if memory limit is specified in the task. > On Jan. 8, 2020, 5:43 a.m., Greg Mann wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp > > Lines 3623 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/diff/4/?file=2191535#file2191535line3628> > > > > Should this be an `Option`? So that we can only set > > `containerConfig.limits` when limits have actually been set? > > Qian Zhang wrote: > I added a check `if (!executorLimits.empty()) {` before setting > `containerConfig.limit`, HDYT? > > Greg Mann wrote: > If we use an option, then the type in the function signature more > precisely expresses the semantics of the function, which improves readability > IMO. > > Qian Zhang wrote: > I actually thought about it before, but it may make the code a bit more > complicated. Here is the code where we call `launchExecutor()`: > ``` > defer( > self(), > &Self::launchExecutor, > lambda::_1, > frameworkId, > executorInfo_, > executorLimits, > taskGroup.isNone() ? task.get() : Option<TaskInfo>::none())); > ``` > > The type of the variable `executorLimits` is `google::protobuf::Map` > rather than `Option<google::protobuf::Map>`. So if we change the type of the > parameter `executorLimits` of the `launchExecutor` method to > `Option<google::protobuf::Map>`, its `isSome()` will actually always be true > since a map `executorLimits` will always be passed to it, that means checking > `executorLimits.isSome()` in `launchExecutor` is actually redundant. To make > it not redundant, I may need to change the type of the variable > `executorLimits` from `google::protobuf::Map` to > `Option<google::protobuf::Map>`in the caller's code and define another local > variable of type `google::protobuf::Map` and set `executorLimits` to that > variable when we need to set executor's resource limits, I think it is bit > more complicated than the current code in this patch. > > Another option would be set the default value of the `executorLimits` > parameter to an empty map (i.e. `{}`), like: > ``` > const google::protobuf::Map<string, Value::Scalar>& executorLimits = {}, > ``` > Does it help? > > Qian Zhang wrote: > The reason that I did not set the default value of the `executorLimits` > parameter to `{}` is, the variable `executorLimits` in the caller side is > `{}` by default :-) > > Greg Mann wrote: > > To make it not redundant, I may need to change the type of the variable > executorLimits from google::protobuf::Map to Option\<google::protobuf::Map>in > the caller's code and define another local variable of type > google::protobuf::Map and set executorLimits to that variable when we need to > set executor's resource limits > > Personally, that approach sounds better to me. I might be missing > something, but this seems like a classic use case for the `Option` type. I think the classic use case for the `Option` type is like: ``` Option<int> var; if (...) { var = <An int value> } ``` But here with the `Option` type, the code will be something like: ``` Option<Map> executorLimits; Map executorLimits_; if (executorCpuLimit.isSome()) { executorLimits_.insert({"cpus", executorCpuLimit.get()}); } if (executorMemLimit.isSome()) { executorLimits_.insert({"mem", executorMemLimit.get()}); } if (!executorLimits_.empty()) { executorLimits = executorLimits_; } ``` The above code is a bit redundant to me, I think the code like the below is better: ``` Map executorLimits; if (executorCpuLimit.isSome()) { executorLimits.insert({"cpus", executorCpuLimit.get()}); } if (executorMemLimit.isSome()) { executorLimits.insert({"mem", executorMemLimit.get()}); } ``` - Qian ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/#review219154 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 8, 2020, 10:40 a.m., Qian Zhang wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 8, 2020, 10:40 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Andrei Budnik and Greg Mann. > > > Bugs: MESOS-10046 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-10046 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > WIP: Set resource limits when launching executor container. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/slave.hpp 77b5bc0082c6bb73fbd48a2ebe812629921645cb > src/slave/slave.cpp 3839a120446339fea8aa857f431a2dba28ed4002 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71858/diff/6/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Qian Zhang > >
