[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4557?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15095809#comment-15095809
]
Naganarasimha G R commented on YARN-4557:
-----------------------------------------
Hi [~wangda],
Thanks for patiently answering my queries, I still have few doubts :
bq. This is as same as we store missed opportunity of delayed scheduling.
Different priority could have different requests.
I am little confused here if different priority have different requests why to
treat them differently when assigning Ignore partition mode. consider an
example :
In a cluster of *size 10*,
Assume app has initially requested for *[Priority 20, #containers 1, mem 8gb,
label = default ,mNPRSO = 6]*
??*mNPRSO => missedNonPartitionedRequestSchedulingOpportunity*??
now it additionally requests for *[Priority 10, #containers 1, mem 8gb, label
= default ,mNPRSO = 0]*
now may be after 10 NonExclusive nodes HB if container gets assigned for
priority 10 then mNPRSO for req with Priority 20 starts from where it had left
off i.e. 6 , *should it not be from 0* ?
consider the reverse case where app initially requests *[Priority 10,
#containers 1, mem 8gb, label = default ,mNPRSO = 5]*
additionally requests *[Priority 20, #containers 1, mem 8gb, label = default
,mNPRSO = 0]* then if priority 10 is assigned after 5 more NonExclusive nodes
HB only then mNPRSO for *priority 20* is started.
So felt this is not correct and better to consider
{{missedNonPartitionedRequestSchedulingOpportunity}} for app as whole or
consider it individually for each priority and return
AllocationState.APP_SKIPPED !
bq. This cannot happen, see following code it: if (allocation.state ==
AllocationState.LOCALITY_SKIPPED) .....
Thanks had missed observing this part of the code, but consider when
{{ResourceRequest.getRelaxLocality}} is false then
{{RegularContainerAllocator.assignContainersOnNode(...)}} returns
{{PRIORITY_SKIPPED}} hence is there a chance for priority inversion ?
bq. This is "cannot use" and non-exclusive delay is "cannot be satisfied
currently"
IIUC you are indicating that RR's with diff priorities but for the same
partition then priority inversion should not happen ?
> Few issues in scheduling with Node Labels
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-4557
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4557
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: resourcemanager
> Reporter: Naganarasimha G R
> Assignee: Naganarasimha G R
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: YARN-4557.v1.001.patch, YARN-4557.v2.001.patch,
> YARN-4557.v2.002.patch
>
>
> * When app has submitted requests for multiple priority in default partition,
> then if one of the priority requests has missed
> non-partitioned-resource-request equivalent to cluster size then container
> needs to be allocated. Currently if the higher priority requests doesn't
> satisfy the condition, then whole application is getting skipped instead the
> priority
> * When queue has * as accessibility, then the queue ordering was not
> happening properly.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
