[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-9277?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16766811#comment-16766811
]
Wilfred Spiegelenburg commented on YARN-9277:
---------------------------------------------
I agree with [~Steven Rand] sorting could be good but setting a hard no go
could cause issues.
Can you also explain how we can pre-empt a container that is owned by the
application itself?
I thought that we would only allow containers to be pre-empted if the
application is over its fair share and even then only if pre-empting the
container would not drop the application below its fair share. The
{{FSPreemptionThread.identifyContainersToPreemptOnNode()}} calls
{{app.canContainerBePreempted()}} which contains that check and the container
is not added. Since the app we are pre-empting for is under its fair share any
container of the app itself should be filtered out by that. Am I reading this
all wrong or have you found cases that we did pre-empt a container for its own
app and it is not working as expected?
> Add more restrictions In FairScheduler Preemption
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-9277
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-9277
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: fairscheduler
> Reporter: Zhaohui Xin
> Assignee: Zhaohui Xin
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: YARN-9277.001.patch, YARN-9277.002.patch
>
>
>
> I think we should add more restrictions in fair scheduler preemption.
> * We should not preempt self
> * We should not preempt high priority job
> * We should not preempt container which has been running for a long time.
> * ...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
