Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

perf: Reduce delete calls by checking DeletionTimestamp #1095

Merged

Conversation

jonathan-innis
Copy link
Member

@jonathan-innis jonathan-innis commented Mar 13, 2024

Fixes #N/A

Description

Check DeletionTimestamp when calling Delete(). If the DeletionTimestamp is already set, we don't need to call Delete() again. I noticed that we were over-calling Delete() when I was looking at kube-apiserver audit logs for the termination flow.

For instance, for a singe Node that was stuck terminating due to evictions for 5m, it had 176 calls to Delete() the NodeClaim.

How was this change tested?

make presubmit

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Mar 13, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Mar 13, 2024
Copy link
Member

@fmuyassarov fmuyassarov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good :)

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: fmuyassarov, jonathan-innis

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8261254321

Details

  • 7 of 11 (63.64%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
  • 2 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.008%) to 78.676%

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
pkg/controllers/node/termination/controller.go 3 5 60.0%
pkg/controllers/nodeclaim/termination/controller.go 4 6 66.67%
Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
pkg/utils/atomic/lazy.go 2 87.88%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 8260153634: 0.008%
Covered Lines: 8235
Relevant Lines: 10467

💛 - Coveralls

Copy link
Contributor

@engedaam engedaam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 13, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 9c6012c into kubernetes-sigs:main Mar 13, 2024
12 checks passed
@Bryce-Soghigian
Copy link
Member

🙌

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants