generated from kubernetes/kubernetes-template-project
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 223
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
Trigger the workloads eviction on admission check rejection. #1562
Merged
k8s-ci-robot
merged 8 commits into
kubernetes-sigs:main
from
epam:evict-workloads-with-rejected-AC
Jan 12, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
838fa1a
Trigger the workloads eviction on admission check rejection.
trasc b1a07d4
Wait for the eviction to and, add integration test.
trasc 8725651
Review remarks.
trasc 535444a
Review Remarks
trasc 8a05225
Review Remarks
trasc d277388
Review Remarks
trasc b10409e
Fix after rebase.
trasc fbca3bf
Update pkg/controller/core/workload_controller.go
trasc File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this change needed, or just a performance optimization? If needed, does the order matter?
Also, is it correct, I'm asking because if the workload was already admitted, then (IIUC) we don't enter the branch, we also skip
if workload.HasQuotaReservation(&wl) {
, then we enterif rejectedChecks := workload.GetRejectedChecks(&wl); len(rejectedChecks) > 0 {
. So we would mark the workload as finished.I think the idea was to go via eviction rather than marking the workload as finished? Can you explain what is the code path leading to workload eviction in that scenario now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is needed, and the order is important since
SyncAdmittedCondition
can update theAdmitted
cind. in the wl.If the workload is admitted, it will skip this and just check if the eviction is needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I checked that the integration test passes when the check
!workload.IsAdmitted(&wl)
is removed. Can we add / extend the integration test to demonstrate its importance?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done
(If we don't keep this the Admitted condition is cleared before the eviction starts)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why does that matter?
To be clear I'm fine with having Admitted=True and Evicted=True, I'm also fine with clearing the Admitted before adding Evicted=True. Trying to understand what is the difference, to avoid unnecessary code complications.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
comment updated.
It's more logical in my opinion and is the same flow as in case of premonition based eviction.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sgtm, I buy the argument of consistent flow with preemption-based eviction