[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7373?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16215406#comment-16215406 ]
Miklos Szegedi commented on YARN-7373: -------------------------------------- Thank you, [~asuresh]. Yes, I agree, since we modify the node in two rounds above, I think we need a lock around them. > The atomicity of container update in RM is not clear > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Key: YARN-7373 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7373 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: resourcemanager > Reporter: Haibo Chen > Assignee: Haibo Chen > > While reviewing YARN-4511, Miklos noticed that > {code:java} > 342 // notify schedulerNode of the update to correct resource accounting > 343 node.containerUpdated(existingRMContainer, existingContainer); > 344 > 345 > ((RMContainerImpl)tempRMContainer).setContainer(updatedTempContainer); > 346 // notify SchedulerNode of the update to correct resource accounting > 347 node.containerUpdated(tempRMContainer, tempContainer); > 348 > {code} > bq. I think that it would be nicer to lock around these two calls to become > atomic. > Container update, and thus container swap as part of that, is atomic > according to [~asuresh]. > It'd be nice to discuss this in more details to see if we want to be more > conservative. -- 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