hadoop-yarn-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wangda Tan (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (YARN-2933) Capacity Scheduler preemption policy should only consider capacity without labels temporarily
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 23:57:35 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2933?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14267008#comment-14267008

Wangda Tan commented on YARN-2933:

Hi [~mayank_bansal],
Thanks for updating,

In Proportional...Policy, some minor comments
1. {{getNodeLabels}} is nobody using it, should be remove it.

2. {{setNodeLabels}} is too simple to be a method, suggest to remove it too.

3. {{getNonLabeledResources}} should be private

4. {{isLabeledContainer}} could write like 
  private boolean isLabeledContainer(RMContainer c) {
    return labels.containsKey(c.getAllocatedNode());
Avoid traversing of all keys,
I suggest to remove this method since it's too simple. At least, it should be private.

In Test, currently the {{testIdealAllocationForLabels}} is not correct. In your test, queueA/B
has total guaranteed *NON_LABELED* resource 100, they used 100 *NON_LABELED* resource, but
{{NodeLabelsManager.getResourceByLabel(no-label)}} is only 80. (non-labeled-used/configured-resource
> NodeLabelsManager.ResourceByLabel(no-label))

One thing need worth to take care is, if we don't do anything on TestPro..Policy mocking queues
and applications. All used/configured capacities are *NON_LABELED* capacity.

I suggest to write test like:

  public void testIdealAllocationForLabels() {
    int[][] qData = new int[][] {
    // / A B
        { 80, 40, 40 }, // abs
        { 80, 80, 80 }, // maxcap
        { 80, 80, 0 }, // used
        { 70, 20, 50 }, // pending
        { 0, 0, 0 }, // reserved
        { 5, 4, 1 }, // apps
        { -1, 1, 1 }, // req granularity
        { 2, 0, 0 }, // subqueues
    setAMContainer = true;
    setLabelContainer = true;
    Map<NodeId, Set<String>> labels = new HashMap<NodeId, Set<String>>();
    NodeId node = NodeId.newInstance("node1", 0);
    Set<String> labelSet = new HashSet<String>();
    labels.put(node, labelSet);
    ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy policy = buildPolicy(qData);
    // Subtracting Label X resources from cluster resources
    when(lm.getResourceByLabel(anyString(), any(Resource.class))).thenReturn(
        Resources.clone(Resource.newInstance(80, 0)));

    // By skipping AM Container and Labeled container, all other 18 containers
    // of appD will be
    // preempted
    verify(mDisp, times(18)).handle(argThat(new IsPreemptionRequestFor(appD)));

    // By skipping AM Container and Labeled container, all other 18 containers
    // of appC will be
    // preempted
    verify(mDisp, times(18)).handle(argThat(new IsPreemptionRequestFor(appC)));

    // rest 4 containers from appB will be preempted
    verify(mDisp, times(4)).handle(argThat(new IsPreemptionRequestFor(appB)));
    setAMContainer = false;
    setLabelContainer = false;
Now, configured *NON_LABELED* resource is 80, before entering policy.editSchedule, {{clusterResources.setMemory(100);}}.
Which makes clusterResource > non-labeled-resource And in computation, it will only consider
clusterResource is 80 after {{getNonLabeledResources}}.

And could you take a look at findbugs warning.


> Capacity Scheduler preemption policy should only consider capacity without labels temporarily
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: YARN-2933
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2933
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: capacityscheduler
>            Reporter: Wangda Tan
>            Assignee: Mayank Bansal
>         Attachments: YARN-2933-1.patch, YARN-2933-2.patch, YARN-2933-3.patch, YARN-2933-4.patch
> Currently, we have capacity enforcement on each queue for each label in CapacityScheduler,
but we don't have preemption policy to support that. YARN-2498 is targeting to support preemption
respect node labels, but we have some gaps in code base, like queues/FiCaScheduler should
be able to get usedResource/pendingResource, etc. by label. These items potentially need to
refactor CS which we need spend some time carefully think about.
> For now, what immediately we can do is allow calculate ideal_allocation and preempt containers
only for resources on nodes without labels, to avoid regression like: A cluster has some nodes
with labels and some not, assume queueA isn't satisfied for resource without label, but for
now, preemption policy may preempt resource from nodes with labels for queueA, that is not
> Again, it is just a short-term enhancement, YARN-2498 will consider preemption respecting
node-labels for Capacity Scheduler which is our final target. 

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message