Honor task desired state in allocator #435
Conversation
|
@mrjana: CI is failing with a race detector warning. |
|
|
||
| // taskDead checks whether a task is not actively running as far as allocator purposes are concerned. | ||
| func taskDead(t *api.Task) bool { | ||
| return t.DesiredState == api.TaskStateDead && t.Status != nil && t.Status.State > api.TaskStateRunning |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think t.DesiredState == api.TaskStateDead is a sufficient condition. Does the allocator care about the observed state?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I thought about that but decided that we don't want to deallocate the network resources for the task until the task is actually not running in the node, because otherwise we might provide the same IP address to more than one running containers even though one of them might be going down
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense. I just thought of this after adding the comment.
But doesn't this mean that if a node fails, we will never free the network resources associated with the tasks it was running? What's the right behavior here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am assuming that if the node fails, the task will be removed. That is why I am checking task dead or isDelete here: https://github.com/docker/swarm-v2/pull/435/files#diff-119d353212583d96a59cba8c82b80280R254 while deciding if I want to deallocate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tasks from failed node won't be immediately deleted, to provide task history. Instead, they generally have DesiredState set to DEAD.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm.. When will they be removed? I realized this as well when I was doing further testing with manager restart. Seems like we retain dead nodes and I was not handling that properly in doNetworkInit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a PR I'm going to open later today for this. The idea is that we will keep a certain number of old tasks per service instance, and then start deleting the oldest ones.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed offline, there is no perfect solution to this. The current approach in the PR is the most conservative, since it will favor leaking resources over reusing them in a dangerous way. This seems like the right place to start, but in the future we might have to iterate on the approach.
With the task lifecycle changes and the introduction of DesiredState in task object, allocator needs to the honor that and make allocation/deallocation decisions based on that to properly work in sync with the other stages of the manager pipeline. Made changes to make allocation/deallocation decisions based on a combination of task DesiredState and the current state. Signed-off-by: Jana Radhakrishnan <[email protected]>
|
LGTM |
With the task lifecycle changes and the introduction of DesiredState in
task object, allocator needs to the honor that and make
allocation/deallocation decisions based on that to properly work in sync
with the other stages of the manager pipeline. Made changes to make
allocation/deallocation decisions based on a combination of task
DesiredState and the current state.
Signed-off-by: Jana Radhakrishnan [email protected]