[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6895?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16109616#comment-16109616
]
Yufei Gu commented on YARN-6895:
--------------------------------
Thanks [~miklos.szeg...@cloudera.com] for the patch. One question, if a node
without any preemption reservation release some resources smaller than
preemption resource request, scheduler still does the normal reservation?
I was wondering would be easier and cleaner if we put
{{resourcesPreemptedForApp}}, {{appIdToAppMap}} and {{totalResourcesPreempted}}
into one single class? That case, we may get rid of {{appIdToAppMap}} and
{{totalResourcesPreempted}} as well, and handle lock nicely.
Some nits:
- Need to expand this line {{import static org.junit.Assert.*;}}
- Extra space on this line {{return resourcesPreemptedForApp.containsKey(app);}}
- Comment "Reserve only, if not reserved for preempted resources," seems
confusing to me, can you rewrite this comment block?
> [FairScheduler] Preemption reservation may cause regular reservation leaks
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-6895
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6895
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: fairscheduler
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0-alpha4
> Reporter: Miklos Szegedi
> Assignee: Miklos Szegedi
> Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: YARN-6895.000.patch
>
>
> We found a limitation in the implementation of YARN-6432. If the container
> released is smaller than the preemption request, a node reservation is
> created that is never deleted.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
