[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-5906?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15745717#comment-15745717
]
Sunil G commented on YARN-5906:
-------------------------------
Thanks [~leftnoteasy] for the patch. Generally approach seems fine for me.
Few comments:
1. {{getSchedulingPlacementSet}} Remove the ToDO comments as a clean impl is
done with this patch.
2. LocalitySchedulingPlacementSet implements few common placementset apis'. Do
you feel few of them could be moved to abstract class and could keep the
abstractness ready if more type of placements could be configured as policy
later.
3. AppSchedulingInfo#getResourceRequests return empty map when placement set
comes null fr given SchedulerKey. We could return null to the caller instead of
an empty map, correct? any specific reasons?
4. {{LocalitySchedulingPlacementSet}} has writelock and readlock. We operate on
AppSchedulingInfo from FiCaSchedulerApp, so after this new lock, it will be a
3rd layer of lock. will it be risky? could we operate under AppSchedulingInfo
lock itself?
5. LocalitySchedulingPlacementSet supports singleNode from
{{getPreferredNodeIterator}} now. As we go on, if different policy based
iterator is needed, how can we attach policy to
{{LocalitySchedulingPlacementSet}}?
> Update AppSchedulingInfo to use SchedulingPlacementSet
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-5906
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-5906
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Wangda Tan
> Assignee: Wangda Tan
> Attachments: YARN-5906.1.patch, YARN-5906.2.patch, YARN-5906.3.patch
>
>
> Currently AppSchedulingInfo simply stores resource request and scheduler make
> decision according to stored resource request. For example, CS/FS use
> slightly different approach to get pending resource request and make delay
> scheduling decision.
> There're several benefits of moving pending resource request data structure
> to SchedulingPlacementSet
> 1) Delay scheduling logic should be agnostic to scheduler, for example CS
> supports count-based delay and FS supports both of count-based and time-based
> delay. Ideally scheduler should be able to choose which delay scheduling
> policy to use.
> 2) In addition to 1., YARN-4902 has proposal to support pluggable delay
> scheduling behavior in addition to locality-based (host->rack->offswitch).
> Which requires more flexibility.
> 3) To make YARN-4902 becomes real, instead of directly adding the new
> resource request API to client, we can make scheduler to use it internally to
> make sure it is well defined. And AppSchedulingInfo/SchedulingPlacementSet
> will be the perfect place to isolate which ResourceRequest implementation to
> use.
> 4) Different scheduling requirement needs different behavior of checking
> ResourceRequest table.
> This JIRA is the 1st patch of several refactorings. Which moves all
> ResourceRequest data structure and logics to SchedulingPlacementSet. We need
> follow changes to make it better structured
> - Make delay scheduling to be a plugin of SchedulingPlacementSet
> - After YARN-4902 get committed, change SchedulingPlacementSet to use
> YARN-4902 internally.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
