Mailing-List: contact common-commits-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: wangda@apache.org
To: common-commits@hadoop.apache.org
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 21:42:29 -0000
Message-Id: <b753224aca1241eca65c404319515a57@git.apache.org>
Subject: [1/3] hadoop git commit: YARN-2113. Add cross-user preemption within
 CapacityScheduler's leaf-queue. (Sunil G via wangda)
archived-at: Mon, 22 May 2017 21:42:34 -0000

Repository: hadoop
Updated Branches:
  refs/heads/trunk 9cab42cc7 -> 8e0f83e49


http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/blob/c583ab02/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/resourcemanager/monitor/capacity/TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueUserLimit.java
----------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/resourcemanager/monitor/capacity/TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueUserLimit.java b/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/resourcemanager/monitor/capacity/TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueUserLimit.java
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7df52f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/resourcemanager/monitor/capacity/TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueUserLimit.java
@@ -0,0 +1,899 @@
+/**
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+ * or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
+ * distributed with this work for additional information
+ * regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
+ * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+ * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+ * with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+
+package org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.monitor.capacity;
+
+import org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.scheduler.capacity.CapacitySchedulerConfiguration;
+import org.junit.Before;
+import org.junit.Test;
+
+import java.io.IOException;
+
+import static org.mockito.Matchers.argThat;
+import static org.mockito.Mockito.times;
+import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;
+
+/**
+ * Test class for IntraQueuePreemption scenarios.
+ */
+public class TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueUserLimit
+    extends
+      ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyMockFramework {
+  @Before
+  public void setup() {
+    super.setup();
+    conf.setBoolean(
+        CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_ENABLED, true);
+    policy = new ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy(rmContext, cs, mClock);
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testSimpleIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoUsers()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+     * Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *        |
+     *        a
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Scenario:
+     * Preconditions:
+     *   Queue total resources: 100
+     *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | app1 | user1 | 1        | 100  | 0       |
+     *   | app2 | user2 | 1        | 0    | 30      |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. app1 of high priority
+     * has a demand of 0 and its already using 100. app2 from user2 has a demand
+     * of 30, and UL is 50. 30 would be preempted from app1.
+     */
+
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 100 30 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 100 30 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,100,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,30,user2)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt
+    // resources from app1.
+    verify(mDisp, times(30)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionWithSingleUser()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+     * Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *        |
+     *        a
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Scenario:
+     *   Queue total resources: 100
+     *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | app1 | user1 | 1        | 100  | 0       |
+     *   | app2 | user1 | 1        | 0    | 30      |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     * Given single user, lower priority/late submitted apps has to
+     * wait.
+     */
+
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 100 30 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 100 30 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,100,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,30,user1)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2 needs more resource. Since app1,2 are from same user, there wont be
+    // any preemption.
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoUserUnderUserLimit()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+     * Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *        |
+     *        a
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Scenario:
+     *   Queue total resources: 100
+     *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | app1 | user1 | 1        | 50   | 0       |
+     *   | app2 | user2 | 1        | 30   | 30      |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. app1 of high priority
+     * has a demand of 0 and its already using 50. app2 from user2 has a demand
+     * of 30, and UL is 50. Since app1 is under UL, there should not be any
+     * preemption.
+     */
+
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 80 30 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 80 30 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user2)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2 needs more resource. Since app1,2 are from same user, there wont be
+    // any preemption.
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testSimpleIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoUsersWithAppPriority()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+     * Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *        |
+     *        a
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Scenario:
+     *   Queue total resources: 100
+     *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | app1 | user1 | 2        | 100  | 0       |
+     *   | app2 | user2 | 1        | 0    | 30      |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. app1 of high priority
+     * has a demand of 0 and its already using 100. app2 from user2 has a demand
+     * of 30, and UL is 50. 30 would be preempted from app1.
+     */
+
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 100 30 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 100 30 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(2,1,n1,,100,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,30,user2)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt
+    // resources from app1 even though its priority is more than app2.
+    verify(mDisp, times(30)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testIntraQueuePreemptionOfUserLimitWithMultipleApps()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+     * Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *        |
+     *        a
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Scenario:
+     *   Queue total resources: 100
+     *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | app1 | user1 | 1        | 30   | 30      |
+     *   | app2 | user2 | 1        | 20   | 20      |
+     *   | app3 | user1 | 1        | 30   | 30      |
+     *   | app4 | user2 | 1        | 0    | 10      |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
+     * apps and check for preemption across apps.
+     */
+
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 80 90 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 80 90 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user2);" +
+            "a\t" // app3 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" +
+            "a\t" // app4 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user2)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
+    // preempt resources from app3 (compare to app1, app3 has low priority).
+    verify(mDisp, times(9)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(3))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testNoPreemptionOfUserLimitWithMultipleAppsAndSameUser()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+     * Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *        |
+     *        a
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Scenario:
+     *   Queue total resources: 100
+     *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | app1 | user1 | 1        | 30   | 30      |
+     *   | app2 | user1 | 1        | 20   | 20      |
+     *   | app3 | user1 | 1        | 30   | 30      |
+     *   | app4 | user1 | 1        | 0    | 10      |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
+     * apps and check for preemption across apps.
+     */
+
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 80 90 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 80 90 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,20,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user1);" +
+            "a\t" // app3 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" +
+            "a\t" // app4 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user1)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
+    // preempt resources from app3 (compare to app1, app3 has low priority).
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(2))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(3))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(4))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testIntraQueuePreemptionOfUserLimitWitAppsOfDifferentPriority()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+     * Queue structure is:
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *        |
+     *        a
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Scenario:
+     *   Queue total resources: 100
+     *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | app1 | user1 | 3        | 30   | 30      |
+     *   | app2 | user2 | 1        | 20   | 20      |
+     *   | app3 | user1 | 4        | 30   | 0       |
+     *   | app4 | user2 | 1        | 0    | 10      |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
+     * apps and check for preemption across apps.
+     */
+
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(
+        CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 80 60 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 80 60 0])"; // b
+
+    String appsConfig =
+        // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(3,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user2);" + "a\t" // app3 in a
+            + "(4,1,n1,,30,false,0,user1);" + "a\t" // app4 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user2)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
+    // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority).
+    verify(mDisp, times(9)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testIntraQueuePreemptionOfUserLimitInTwoQueues()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+     * Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *      /   \
+     *     a     b
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Guaranteed resource of a/b are 40:60 Total cluster resource = 100
+     * maxIntraQueuePreemptableLimit by default is 50%. This test is to verify
+     * that intra-queue preemption could occur in two queues when user-limit
+     * irreuglarity is present in queue.
+     */
+
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+            INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 90 80 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[60 100 55 60 0]);" + // a
+            "-b(=[40 100 35 20 0])"; // b
+
+    String appsConfig =
+        // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(3,1,n1,,20,false,30,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user2);" +
+            "a\t" // app3 in a
+            + "(4,1,n1,,15,false,0,user1);" +
+            "a\t" // app4 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user2);" +
+            "b\t" // app5 in b
+            + "(3,1,n1,,25,false,10,user1);" +
+            "b\t" // app6 in b
+            + "(1,1,n1,,10,false,10,user2)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
+    // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority).
+    verify(mDisp, times(4)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(4)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(5))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoRequestingUsers()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+    * Queue structure is:
+    *
+    * <pre>
+    *       root
+    *        |
+    *        a
+    * </pre>
+    *
+    * Scenario:
+    *   Queue total resources: 100
+    *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+    *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+    *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+    *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+    *   | app1 | user1 | 1        | 60   | 10      |
+    *   | app2 | user2 | 1        | 40   | 10      |
+    *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+    * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
+    * apps and check for preemption across apps.
+    */
+
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 100 20 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 100 20 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,60,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,40,false,10,user2)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt
+    // resources from app1.
+    verify(mDisp, times(9)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(2))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionIfBelowUserLimitAndLowPriorityExtraUsers()
+      throws IOException {
+     /**
+     * Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *        |
+     *        a
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Scenario:
+     * Preconditions:
+     *   Queue total resources: 100
+     *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | app1 | user1 | 1        | 50   | 0       |
+     *   | app2 | user2 | 1        | 50   | 0       |
+     *   | app3 | user3 | 0        | 0    | 10      |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     * This scenario should never preempt from either user1 or user2
+     */
+
+    // Set max preemption per round to 50% (this is different from minimum user
+    // limit percent).
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.7);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 100 10 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 100 10 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t\
+    //     (priority,resource,host,label,#repeat,reserved,pending,user)\tMULP;
+        "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1)\t50;" + // app1, user1
+        "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user2)\t50;" + // app2, user2
+        "a\t(0,1,n1,,0,false,10,user3)\t50";   // app3, user3
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
+    // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority).
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(2))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionIfBelowUserLimitAndSamePriorityExtraUsers()
+      throws IOException {
+     /**
+     * Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *        |
+     *        a
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Scenario:
+     * Preconditions:
+     *   Queue total resources: 100
+     *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | app1 | user1 | 1        | 50   | 0       |
+     *   | app2 | user2 | 1        | 50   | 0       |
+     *   | app3 | user3 | 1        | 0    | 10      |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     * This scenario should never preempt from either user1 or user2
+     */
+
+    // Set max preemption per round to 50% (this is different from minimum user
+    // limit percent).
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.7);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 100 10 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 100 10 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t\
+    //     (priority,resource,host,label,#repeat,reserved,pending,user)\tMULP;
+        "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1)\t50;" + // app1, user1
+        "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user2)\t50;" + // app2, user2
+        "a\t(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user3)\t50";   // app3, user3
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
+    // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority).
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(2))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionIfBelowUserLimitAndHighPriorityExtraUsers()
+      throws IOException {
+     /**
+     * Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *        |
+     *        a
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Scenario:
+     * Preconditions:
+     *   Queue total resources: 100
+     *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     *   | app1 | user1 | 1        | 50   | 0       |
+     *   | app2 | user2 | 1        | 50   | 0       |
+     *   | app3 | user3 | 5        | 0    | 10      |
+     *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+     * This scenario should never preempt from either user1 or user2
+     */
+
+    // Set max preemption per round to 50% (this is different from minimum user
+    // limit percent).
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.7);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 100 10 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 100 10 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t\
+    //     (priority,resource,host,label,#repeat,reserved,pending,user)\tMULP;
+        "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1)\t50;" + // app1, user1
+        "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user2)\t50;" + // app2, user2
+        "a\t(5,1,n1,,0,false,10,user3)\t50";   // app3, user3
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
+    // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority).
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(2))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionWithUserLimitDeadzone()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+    * Queue structure is:
+    *
+    * <pre>
+    *       root
+    *        |
+    *        a
+    * </pre>
+    *
+    * Scenario:
+    *   Queue total resources: 100
+    *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+    *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+    *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+    *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+    *   | app1 | user1 | 1        | 60   | 10      |
+    *   | app2 | user2 | 1        | 40   | 10      |
+    *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+    * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
+    * apps and check for preemption across apps but also ensure that user's
+    * usage not coming under its user-limit.
+    */
+
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 100 20 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 100 20 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,3,n1,,20,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,40,false,10,user2)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt
+    // 3 resources (9GB) from app1. We will not preempt last container as it may
+    // pull user's usage under its user-limit.
+    verify(mDisp, times(3)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(2))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testIntraQueuePreemptionWithUserLimitDeadzoneAndPriority()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+    * Queue structure is:
+    *
+    * <pre>
+    *       root
+    *        |
+    *        a
+    * </pre>
+    *
+    * Scenario:
+    *   Queue total resources: 100
+    *   Minimum user limit percent: 50%
+    *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+    *   | APP  | USER  | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
+    *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+    *   | app1 | user1 | 1        | 60   | 10      |
+    *   | app2 | user2 | 1        | 40   | 10      |
+    *   +--------------+----------+------+---------+
+    * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
+    * apps and check for preemption across apps but also ensure that user's
+    * usage not coming under its user-limit.
+    */
+
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100 100 100 20 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[100 100 100 20 0])"; // a
+
+    String appsConfig =
+    // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,3,n1,,20,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(2,1,n1,,0,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,40,false,20,user2)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt
+    // 3 resources (9GB) from app1. We will not preempt last container as it may
+    // pull user's usage under its user-limit.
+    verify(mDisp, times(3)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(2))));
+
+    // After first round, 3 containers were preempted from app1 and resource
+    // distribution will be like below.
+    appsConfig =
+        // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,3,n1,,17,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(2,1,n1,,0,false,10,user1);" + // app2 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1,n1,,49,false,11,user2)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // app2 has priority demand within same user 'user1'. However user1's used
+    // is alredy under UL. Hence no preemption. We will still get 3 container
+    // while asserting as it was aleady selected in earlier round.
+    verify(mDisp, times(3)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(1))));
+  }
+}

http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/blob/c583ab02/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/resourcemanager/monitor/capacity/TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueWithDRF.java
----------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/resourcemanager/monitor/capacity/TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueWithDRF.java b/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/resourcemanager/monitor/capacity/TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueWithDRF.java
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7784549
--- /dev/null
+++ b/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/resourcemanager/monitor/capacity/TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueWithDRF.java
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+/**
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+ * or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
+ * distributed with this work for additional information
+ * regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
+ * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+ * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+ * with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+
+package org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.monitor.capacity;
+
+import org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.scheduler.capacity.CapacitySchedulerConfiguration;
+import org.apache.hadoop.yarn.util.resource.DominantResourceCalculator;
+import org.junit.Before;
+import org.junit.Test;
+
+import java.io.IOException;
+
+import static org.mockito.Matchers.argThat;
+import static org.mockito.Mockito.times;
+import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;
+import static org.mockito.Mockito.when;
+
+/**
+ * Test class for IntraQueuePreemption scenarios.
+ */
+public class TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueWithDRF
+    extends
+      ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyMockFramework {
+  @Before
+  public void setup() {
+    super.setup();
+    conf.setBoolean(
+        CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_ENABLED, true);
+    rc = new DominantResourceCalculator();
+    when(cs.getResourceCalculator()).thenReturn(rc);
+    policy = new ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy(rmContext, cs, mClock);
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testSimpleIntraQueuePreemptionWithVCoreResource()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+     * The simplest test preemption, Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *       root
+     *     /  | | \
+     *    a  b  c  d
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Guaranteed resource of a/b/c/d are 10:40:20:30 Total cluster resource =
+     * 100 Scenario: Queue B has few running apps and two high priority apps
+     * have demand. Apps which are running at low priority (4) will preempt few
+     * of its resources to meet the demand.
+     */
+
+    conf.set(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_ORDER_POLICY,
+        "priority_first");
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100:200,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100:200";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100:50 100:50 80:40 120:60 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[10:5 100:50 10:5 50:25 0]);" + // a
+            "-b(=[40:20 100:50 40:20 60:30 0]);" + // b
+            "-c(=[20:10 100:50 10:5 10:5 0]);" + // c
+            "-d(=[30:15 100:50 20:10 0 0])"; // d
+
+    String appsConfig =
+        // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,
+        // pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,1:1,n1,,5,false,25:25);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1:1,n1,,5,false,25:25);" + // app2 a
+            "b\t" // app3 in b
+            + "(4,1:1,n1,,36,false,20:20);" + // app3 b
+            "b\t" // app4 in b
+            + "(4,1:1,n1,,2,false,10:10);" + // app4 b
+            "b\t" // app4 in b
+            + "(5,1:1,n1,,1,false,10:10);" + // app5 b
+            "b\t" // app4 in b
+            + "(6,1:1,n1,,1,false,10:10);" + // app6 in b
+            "c\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,1:1,n1,,10,false,10:10);" + "d\t" // app7 in c
+            + "(1,1:1,n1,,20,false,0)";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // For queue B, app3 and app4 were of lower priority. Hence take 8
+    // containers from them by hitting the intraQueuePreemptionDemand of 20%.
+    verify(mDisp, times(1)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(4))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(7)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(3))));
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testIntraQueuePreemptionWithDominantVCoreResource()
+      throws IOException {
+    /**
+     * The simplest test preemption, Queue structure is:
+     *
+     * <pre>
+     *     root
+     *     /  \
+     *    a    b
+     * </pre>
+     *
+     * Guaranteed resource of a/b are 40:60 Total cluster resource = 100
+     * Scenario: Queue B has few running apps and two high priority apps have
+     * demand. Apps which are running at low priority (4) will preempt few of
+     * its resources to meet the demand.
+     */
+
+    conf.set(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_ORDER_POLICY,
+        "priority_first");
+    // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
+    conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
+        INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
+        (float) 0.5);
+
+    String labelsConfig = "=100:200,true;";
+    String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
+        "n1= res=100:200";
+    String queuesConfig =
+        // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
+        "root(=[100:50 100:50 50:40 110:60 0]);" + // root
+            "-a(=[40:20 100:50 9:9 50:30 0]);" + // a
+            "-b(=[60:30 100:50 40:30 60:30 0]);"; // b
+
+    String appsConfig =
+        // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,
+        // pending)
+        "a\t" // app1 in a
+            + "(1,2:1,n1,,4,false,25:25);" + // app1 a
+            "a\t" // app2 in a
+            + "(1,1:3,n1,,2,false,25:25);" + // app2 a
+            "b\t" // app3 in b
+            + "(4,2:1,n1,,10,false,20:20);" + // app3 b
+            "b\t" // app4 in b
+            + "(4,1:2,n1,,5,false,10:10);" + // app4 b
+            "b\t" // app5 in b
+            + "(5,1:1,n1,,5,false,30:20);" + // app5 b
+            "b\t" // app6 in b
+            + "(6,2:1,n1,,5,false,30:20);";
+
+    buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
+    policy.editSchedule();
+
+    // For queue B, app3 and app4 were of lower priority. Hence take 4
+    // containers.
+    verify(mDisp, times(9)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(3))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(4)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(4))));
+    verify(mDisp, times(4)).handle(argThat(
+        new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
+            getAppAttemptId(5))));
+  }
+}


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-commits-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-commits-help@hadoop.apache.org