| /** |
| * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one |
| * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file |
| * distributed with this work for additional information |
| * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file |
| * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the |
| * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance |
| * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at |
| * |
| * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 |
| * |
| * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software |
| * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, |
| * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. |
| * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and |
| * limitations under the License. |
| */ |
| |
| package org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.monitor.capacity; |
| |
| import org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.scheduler.capacity.CapacitySchedulerConfiguration; |
| import org.junit.Before; |
| import org.junit.Test; |
| |
| import java.io.IOException; |
| |
| import static org.mockito.Matchers.argThat; |
| import static org.mockito.Mockito.times; |
| import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify; |
| |
| /** |
| * Test class for IntraQueuePreemption scenarios. |
| */ |
| public class TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueUserLimit |
| extends |
| ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyMockFramework { |
| @Before |
| public void setup() { |
| super.setup(); |
| conf.setBoolean( |
| CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_ENABLED, true); |
| policy = new ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy(rmContext, cs, mClock); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testSimpleIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoUsers() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Preconditions: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 100 | 0 | |
| * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 0 | 30 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. app1 of high priority |
| * has a demand of 0 and its already using 100. app2 from user2 has a demand |
| * of 30, and UL is 50. 30 would be preempted from app1. |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption limit as 50%. |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 100 30 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 100 30 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,100,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,30,user2)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt |
| // resources from app1. |
| verify(mDisp, times(30)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionWithSingleUser() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 100 | 0 | |
| * | app2 | user1 | 1 | 0 | 30 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * Given single user, lower priority/late submitted apps has to |
| * wait. |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption limit as 50%. |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 100 30 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 100 30 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,100,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,30,user1)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2 needs more resource. Since app1,2 are from same user, there wont be |
| // any preemption. |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoUserUnderUserLimit() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 50 | 0 | |
| * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 30 | 30 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. app1 of high priority |
| * has a demand of 0 and its already using 50. app2 from user2 has a demand |
| * of 30, and UL is 50. Since app1 is under UL, there should not be any |
| * preemption. |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption limit as 50%. |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 80 30 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 80 30 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user2)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2 needs more resource. Since app1,2 are from same user, there wont be |
| // any preemption. |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testSimpleIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoUsersWithAppPriority() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 2 | 100 | 0 | |
| * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 0 | 30 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. app1 of high priority |
| * has a demand of 0 and its already using 100. app2 from user2 has a demand |
| * of 30, and UL is 50. 30 would be preempted from app1. |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption limit as 50%. |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 100 30 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 100 30 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(2,1,n1,,100,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,30,user2)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt |
| // resources from app1 even though its priority is more than app2. |
| verify(mDisp, times(30)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testIntraQueuePreemptionOfUserLimitWithMultipleApps() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 30 | 30 | |
| * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 20 | 20 | |
| * | app3 | user1 | 1 | 30 | 30 | |
| * | app4 | user2 | 1 | 0 | 10 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple |
| * apps and check for preemption across apps. |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption limit as 50%. |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 80 90 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 80 90 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user2);" + |
| "a\t" // app3 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" + |
| "a\t" // app4 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user2)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence |
| // preempt resources from app3 (compare to app1, app3 has low priority). |
| verify(mDisp, times(9)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(3)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testNoPreemptionOfUserLimitWithMultipleAppsAndSameUser() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 30 | 30 | |
| * | app2 | user1 | 1 | 20 | 20 | |
| * | app3 | user1 | 1 | 30 | 30 | |
| * | app4 | user1 | 1 | 0 | 10 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple |
| * apps and check for preemption across apps. |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption limit as 50%. |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 80 90 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 80 90 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,20,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user1);" + |
| "a\t" // app3 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" + |
| "a\t" // app4 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user1)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence |
| // preempt resources from app3 (compare to app1, app3 has low priority). |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(2)))); |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(3)))); |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(4)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testIntraQueuePreemptionOfUserLimitWitAppsOfDifferentPriority() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 3 | 30 | 30 | |
| * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 20 | 20 | |
| * | app3 | user1 | 4 | 30 | 0 | |
| * | app4 | user2 | 1 | 0 | 10 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple |
| * apps and check for preemption across apps. |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption limit as 50%. |
| conf.setFloat( |
| CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 80 60 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 80 60 0])"; // b |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(3,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user2);" + "a\t" // app3 in a |
| + "(4,1,n1,,30,false,0,user1);" + "a\t" // app4 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user2)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence |
| // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority). |
| verify(mDisp, times(9)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testIntraQueuePreemptionOfUserLimitInTwoQueues() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * / \ |
| * a b |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Guaranteed resource of a/b are 40:60 Total cluster resource = 100 |
| * maxIntraQueuePreemptableLimit by default is 50%. This test is to verify |
| * that intra-queue preemption could occur in two queues when user-limit |
| * irreuglarity is present in queue. |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption limit as 50%. |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 90 80 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[60 100 55 60 0]);" + // a |
| "-b(=[40 100 35 20 0])"; // b |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(3,1,n1,,20,false,30,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user2);" + |
| "a\t" // app3 in a |
| + "(4,1,n1,,15,false,0,user1);" + |
| "a\t" // app4 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user2);" + |
| "b\t" // app5 in b |
| + "(3,1,n1,,25,false,10,user1);" + |
| "b\t" // app6 in b |
| + "(1,1,n1,,10,false,10,user2)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence |
| // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority). |
| verify(mDisp, times(4)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| verify(mDisp, times(4)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(5)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoRequestingUsers() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 60 | 10 | |
| * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 40 | 10 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple |
| * apps and check for preemption across apps. |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption limit as 50%. |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 100 20 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 100 20 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,60,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,40,false,10,user2)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt |
| // resources from app1. |
| verify(mDisp, times(9)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(2)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionIfBelowUserLimitAndLowPriorityExtraUsers() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Preconditions: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 50 | 0 | |
| * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 50 | 0 | |
| * | app3 | user3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * This scenario should never preempt from either user1 or user2 |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption per round to 50% (this is different from minimum user |
| // limit percent). |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.7); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 100 10 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 100 10 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t\ |
| // (priority,resource,host,label,#repeat,reserved,pending,user)\tMULP; |
| "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1)\t50;" + // app1, user1 |
| "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user2)\t50;" + // app2, user2 |
| "a\t(0,1,n1,,0,false,10,user3)\t50"; // app3, user3 |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence |
| // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority). |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(2)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionIfBelowUserLimitAndSamePriorityExtraUsers() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Preconditions: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 50 | 0 | |
| * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 50 | 0 | |
| * | app3 | user3 | 1 | 0 | 10 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * This scenario should never preempt from either user1 or user2 |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption per round to 50% (this is different from minimum user |
| // limit percent). |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.7); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 100 10 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 100 10 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t\ |
| // (priority,resource,host,label,#repeat,reserved,pending,user)\tMULP; |
| "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1)\t50;" + // app1, user1 |
| "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user2)\t50;" + // app2, user2 |
| "a\t(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user3)\t50"; // app3, user3 |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence |
| // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority). |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(2)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionIfBelowUserLimitAndHighPriorityExtraUsers() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Preconditions: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 50 | 0 | |
| * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 50 | 0 | |
| * | app3 | user3 | 5 | 0 | 10 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * This scenario should never preempt from either user1 or user2 |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption per round to 50% (this is different from minimum user |
| // limit percent). |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.7); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 100 10 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 100 10 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t\ |
| // (priority,resource,host,label,#repeat,reserved,pending,user)\tMULP; |
| "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1)\t50;" + // app1, user1 |
| "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user2)\t50;" + // app2, user2 |
| "a\t(5,1,n1,,0,false,10,user3)\t50"; // app3, user3 |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence |
| // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority). |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(2)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionWithUserLimitDeadzone() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 60 | 10 | |
| * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 40 | 10 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple |
| * apps and check for preemption across apps but also ensure that user's |
| * usage not coming under its user-limit. |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption limit as 50%. |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 100 20 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 100 20 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(1,3,n1,,20,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,40,false,10,user2)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt |
| // 3 resources (9GB) from app1. We will not preempt last container as it may |
| // pull user's usage under its user-limit. |
| verify(mDisp, times(3)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(2)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testIntraQueuePreemptionWithUserLimitDeadzoneAndPriority() |
| throws IOException { |
| /** |
| * Queue structure is: |
| * |
| * <pre> |
| * root |
| * | |
| * a |
| * </pre> |
| * |
| * Scenario: |
| * Queue total resources: 100 |
| * Minimum user limit percent: 50% |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 60 | 10 | |
| * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 40 | 10 | |
| * +--------------+----------+------+---------+ |
| * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple |
| * apps and check for preemption across apps but also ensure that user's |
| * usage not coming under its user-limit. |
| */ |
| |
| // Set max preemption limit as 50%. |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 100 20 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 100 20 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(1,3,n1,,20,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(2,1,n1,,0,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,40,false,20,user2)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt |
| // 3 resources (9GB) from app1. We will not preempt last container as it may |
| // pull user's usage under its user-limit. |
| verify(mDisp, times(3)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(2)))); |
| |
| // After first round, 3 containers were preempted from app1 and resource |
| // distribution will be like below. |
| appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(1,3,n1,,17,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(2,1,n1,,0,false,10,user1);" + // app2 a |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,49,false,11,user2)"; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2 has priority demand within same user 'user1'. However user1's used |
| // is alredy under UL. Hence no preemption. We will still get 3 container |
| // while asserting as it was aleady selected in earlier round. |
| verify(mDisp, times(3)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| } |
| |
| @Test |
| public void testSimpleIntraQueuePreemptionOneUserUnderOneUserAtOneUserAbove() |
| throws IOException { |
| conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration. |
| INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT, |
| (float) 0.5); |
| |
| String labelsConfig = "=100,true;"; |
| String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label |
| "n1= res=100"; |
| String queuesConfig = |
| // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved |
| "root(=[100 100 100 1 0]);" + // root |
| "-a(=[100 100 100 1 0])"; // a |
| |
| String appsConfig = |
| // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending) |
| "a\t" // app1 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,65,false,0,user1);" + |
| "a\t" // app2 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,35,false,0,user2);" + |
| "a\t" // app3 in a |
| + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,1,user3)" |
| ; |
| |
| buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig); |
| policy.editSchedule(); |
| |
| // app2 is right at its user limit and app1 needs one resource. Should |
| // preempt 1 container. |
| verify(mDisp, times(1)).handle(argThat( |
| new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor( |
| getAppAttemptId(1)))); |
| } |
| } |
