[jira] [Updated] (YARN-7290) canContainerBePreempted can return true when it shouldn't

["Steven Rand (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7290?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Steven Rand updated YARN-7290:
------------------------------
    Attachment: YARN-7290-failing-test.patch

> canContainerBePreempted can return true when it shouldn't
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-7290
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7290
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: fairscheduler
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.0-beta1
>            Reporter: Steven Rand
>         Attachments: YARN-7290-failing-test.patch
>
>
> In FSAppAttempt#canContainerBePreempted, we make sure that preempting the given container would not put the app below its fair share:
> {code}
>     // Check if the app's allocation will be over its fairshare even
>     // after preempting this container
>     Resource usageAfterPreemption = Resources.clone(getResourceUsage());
>     // Subtract resources of containers already queued for preemption
>     synchronized (preemptionVariablesLock) {
>       Resources.subtractFrom(usageAfterPreemption, resourcesToBePreempted);
>     }
>     // Subtract this container's allocation to compute usage after preemption
>     Resources.subtractFrom(
>         usageAfterPreemption, container.getAllocatedResource());
>     return !isUsageBelowShare(usageAfterPreemption, getFairShare());
> {code}
> However, this only considers one container in isolation, and fails to consider containers for the same app that we already added to {{preemptableContainers}} in FSPreemptionThread#identifyContainersToPreemptOnNode. Therefore we can have a case where we preempt multiple containers from the same app, none of which by itself puts the app below fair share, but which cumulatively do so.
> I've attached a patch with a test to show this behavior. The flow is:
> 1. Initially greedyApp runs in {{root.preemptable.child-1}} and is allocated all the resources (8g and 8vcores)
> 2. Then starvingApp runs in {{root.preemptable.child-2}} and requests 2 containers, each of which is 3g and 3vcores in size. At this point both greedyApp and starvingApp have a fair share of 4g (with DRF not in use).
> 3. For the first container requested by starvedApp, we (correctly) preempt 3 containers from greedyApp, each of which is 1g and 1vcore.
> 4. For the second container requested by starvedApp, we again (this time incorrectly) preempt 3 containers from greedyApp. This puts greedyApp below its fair share, but happens anyway because all six times that we call {{return !isUsageBelowShare(usageAfterPreemption, getFairShare());}}, the value of {{usageAfterPreemption}} is 7g and 7vcores (confirmed using debugger).
> So in addition to accounting for {{resourcesToBePreempted}}, we also need to account for containers that we're already planning on preempting in FSPreemptionThread#identifyContainersToPreemptOnNode. 



--
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