CapacityWithGroupPresence: only apply continuous penalty above the presence floor (#44) - #44
Open
yangneu2015 wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
CapacityWithGroupPresence: only apply continuous penalty above the presence floor (#44)#44yangneu2015 wants to merge 2 commits into
yangneu2015 wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
|
@yangneu2015 has exported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view the originating Diff in D109896755. |
meta-codesync
Bot
changed the title
meta-codesync Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 2, 2026
…esence floor (#44) Summary: ### The Problem Continuous penalty is applied unconditionally so it also fired while a group was pinned at its presence-weight floor. This means reducing utilization cannot improve the constraint violation when presence weight is higher than limit, so it drove large numbers of futile moves. ### The Fix * Make the penalty to be applied only while the actual utilization exceeds the presence-weight. * To avoid surprising behavior changes to clients, this change is only enabled when `forcePresent` feature (newly introduced in D109896725) is used. * `MIN` bounds are not impacted by this change, only `MAX`. Differential Revision: D109896755
meta-codesync
Bot
force-pushed
the
export-D109896755
branch
from
July 2, 2026 18:04
45eddd3 to
01db22a
Compare
Summary: Adds an optional `forcePresent` field to `CapacityWithGroupPresenceSpec`: a `Map<ScopeItem, List<Group>>`, for all the given scopeItem and group pair, presence-weight will always be honored even at zero utilization. This lets a caller declare exactly which pairs need presence honored, replacing the legacy frozen dummy-object pattern used in GSP IPNext. Reviewed By: vj-menon Differential Revision: D109896725
…esence floor (#44) Summary: ### The Problem Continuous penalty is applied unconditionally so it also fired while a group was pinned at its presence-weight floor. This means reducing utilization cannot improve the constraint violation when presence weight is higher than limit, so it drove large numbers of futile moves. ### The Fix * Make the penalty to be applied only while the actual utilization exceeds the presence-weight. * To avoid surprising behavior changes to clients, this change is only enabled when `forcePresent` feature (newly introduced in D109896725) is used. * `MIN` bounds are not impacted by this change, only `MAX`. Differential Revision: D109896755
meta-codesync
Bot
force-pushed
the
export-D109896755
branch
from
July 2, 2026 18:11
01db22a to
de30226
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary:
The Problem
Continuous penalty is applied unconditionally so it also fired while a group was pinned at its presence-weight floor. This means reducing utilization cannot improve the constraint violation when presence weight is higher than limit, so it drove large numbers of futile moves.
The Fix
forcePresentfeature (newly introduced in D109896725) is used.MINbounds are not impacted by this change, onlyMAX.Differential Revision: D109896755