From yarn-issues-return-134279-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@hadoop.apache.org Sat Jan 6 08:58:07 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D3118062C for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 08:58:07 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id D16CB160C3B; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 07:58:07 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 23AE2160C2A for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 08:58:06 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 81737 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2018 07:58:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 81725 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jan 2018 07:58:06 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 07:58:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 944231A08A4 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 07:58:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.711 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.711 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SRek5KTvjXQa for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 07:58:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id C4F9D5F398 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 07:58:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 83032E256D for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 07:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 3200A2410E for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 07:58:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 07:58:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Arun Suresh (JIRA)" To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (YARN-6599) Support rich placement constraints in scheduler 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-6599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16314436#comment-16314436 ] Arun Suresh commented on YARN-6599: ----------------------------------- bq. I can rename canSatisfySingleConstraint to canSatisfyConstraints, but it seems that we still need a separate method. In this patch, we need to pass in PlacementConstraint directly. Are you fine with this? Makes Sense {noformat} Can we split the node-partition target expression handling aspect into a separate JIRA maybe ? I would prefer not, there're only a few logics related to partition handling. Splitting this logic cannot help reduce the size of the patch. {noformat} [~leftnoteasy], apologize, but I think we really should split this part. I see a lot of if then also code related to node partitions peppered everywhere - which makes it a bit hard to follow the code. Lets start with a target expression that can handle node/rack scope and then build on that. [~kkaranasos], thoughts ? bq. Also, I'm not sure what is the SELF as target type means It just means source tag == target expression tag. bq. I'm open to any feedbacks on this. I think this is documented in our design doc attached to YARN-6592. Check chapter "Applying constraints during scheduling". I understand - but my issue with with regard to implementation and from a general usability perspective. As I mentioned in the previous comment. There is is this issue of application priority - If app1 has a lower priority than app2 but is scheduled first and app2 has issues scheduling requests that depend on app1, allocation might stall. I think more thought should be put into this. > Support rich placement constraints in scheduler > ----------------------------------------------- > > Key: YARN-6599 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6599 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task > Reporter: Wangda Tan > Assignee: Wangda Tan > Attachments: YARN-6599-YARN-6592.003.patch, YARN-6599-YARN-6592.004.patch, YARN-6599-YARN-6592.005.patch, YARN-6599-YARN-6592.006.patch, YARN-6599-YARN-6592.007.patch, YARN-6599-YARN-6592.008.patch, YARN-6599-YARN-6592.wip.002.patch, YARN-6599.poc.001.patch > > -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org