You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org by "Hadoop QA (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2016/08/31 03:39:21 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-4133) Containers to be preempted leak in
FairScheduler preemption logic.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4133?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15450961#comment-15450961 ]
Hadoop QA commented on YARN-4133:
---------------------------------
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s {color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} patch {color} | {color:red} 0m 4s {color} | {color:red} YARN-4133 does not apply to trunk. Rebase required? Wrong Branch? See https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute for help. {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| JIRA Patch URL | https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12754810/YARN-4133.000.patch |
| JIRA Issue | YARN-4133 |
| Console output | https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/12962/console |
| Powered by | Apache Yetus 0.3.0 http://yetus.apache.org |
This message was automatically generated.
> Containers to be preempted leak in FairScheduler preemption logic.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-4133
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4133
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: fairscheduler
> Affects Versions: 2.7.1
> Reporter: zhihai xu
> Assignee: zhihai xu
> Labels: fs-preemption-bugs
> Attachments: YARN-4133.000.patch
>
>
> Containers to be preempted leak in FairScheduler preemption logic. It may cause missing preemption due to containers in {{warnedContainers}} wrongly removed. The problem is in {{preemptResources}}:
> There are two issues which can cause containers wrongly removed from {{warnedContainers}}:
> Firstly missing the container state {{RMContainerState.ACQUIRED}} in the condition check:
> {code}
> (container.getState() == RMContainerState.RUNNING ||
> container.getState() == RMContainerState.ALLOCATED)
> {code}
> Secondly if {{isResourceGreaterThanNone(toPreempt)}} return false, we shouldn't remove container from {{warnedContainers}}. We should only remove container from {{warnedContainers}}, if container is not in state {{RMContainerState.RUNNING}}, {{RMContainerState.ALLOCATED}} and {{RMContainerState.ACQUIRED}}.
> {code}
> if ((container.getState() == RMContainerState.RUNNING ||
> container.getState() == RMContainerState.ALLOCATED) &&
> isResourceGreaterThanNone(toPreempt)) {
> warnOrKillContainer(container);
> Resources.subtractFrom(toPreempt, container.getContainer().getResource());
> } else {
> warnedIter.remove();
> }
> {code}
> Also once the containers in {{warnedContainers}} are wrongly removed, it will never be preempted. Because these containers are already in {{FSAppAttempt#preemptionMap}} and {{FSAppAttempt#preemptContainer}} won't return the containers in {{FSAppAttempt#preemptionMap}}.
> {code}
> public RMContainer preemptContainer() {
> if (LOG.isDebugEnabled()) {
> LOG.debug("App " + getName() + " is going to preempt a running " +
> "container");
> }
> RMContainer toBePreempted = null;
> for (RMContainer container : getLiveContainers()) {
> if (!getPreemptionContainers().contains(container) &&
> (toBePreempted == null ||
> comparator.compare(toBePreempted, container) > 0)) {
> toBePreempted = container;
> }
> }
> return toBePreempted;
> }
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org