Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-yarn-issues-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-yarn-issues-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2726A17520 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:12:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 58356 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2015 19:12:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-yarn-issues-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 58313 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2015 19:12:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 58293 invoked by uid 99); 4 Feb 2015 19:12:35 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:12:35 +0000 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:12:34 +0000 (UTC) From: "Wangda Tan (JIRA)" To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (YARN-3137) CapacityScheduler.checkAccess unnecessarily grabs the scheduler lock MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3137?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14305763#comment-14305763 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-3137: ---------------------------------- Agree, I have noticed similar issues around this as well. Do you think YARN-3136/YARN-3137 should be tracked as sub-JIRA of YARN-3091? > CapacityScheduler.checkAccess unnecessarily grabs the scheduler lock > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: YARN-3137 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3137 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Bug > Affects Versions: 2.5.0 > Reporter: Jason Lowe > > The queues are stored in a ConcurrentHashMap and the code already checks for a null queue. At best we need to lock individual queues when processing the access check, but I don't see why we need to grab the highly-contested scheduler lock to lookup which queue to use for the hasAccess call. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)