[Buildbot-devel] Forcing on a given buildslave

Pierre Tardy tardyp at gmail.com
Mon Sep 3 20:59:21 UTC 2012

Indeed, we are checking for slave locks inside our nextSlave function.
Probably it make sense to put that check in the core process.


On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell <dustin at v.igoro.us>wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jared Grubb <jared.grubb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think it might be possible to swap whether the buildrequest or the
> slave
> > gets chosen first.
> >
> > I've been looking at that chunk of code lately to solve another issue in
> > that area. I have 3 buildslaves, and use slave-locks to make sure only
> one
> > build happens per slave. The slave-assignment code doesnt check for locks
> > before randomly picking a slave ... so I'll have cases where I have two
> > slaves idle, and one or more builds assinged to the busy slave, all
> waiting
> > on locks.
> This code (the build request distributor) was recently rewritten.  It
> has a pretty complicated job -- coordinating the availability of slave
> builders and build requests, handling build request priorities,
> nextSlave, nextBuild, and so on.  There are a few big things lacking:
> the lock problem you describe above, and also the inability to
> prioritize builds on a particular slave across multiple builders (for
> slaves with limited concurrency).
> I'd love to see this improved!
> Dustin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://buildbot.net/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120903/6f5c8b8e/attachment.html>

More information about the devel mailing list