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
Mark enable-taint-manager CLI flag as deprecated #111411
Mark enable-taint-manager CLI flag as deprecated #111411
Conversation
Change-Id: Ib0247e034def837f973b69c55ed6bc9486bd364e
/assign @lavalamp |
@@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ func (o *NodeLifecycleControllerOptions) AddFlags(fs *pflag.FlagSet) { | |||
fs.Float32Var(&o.SecondaryNodeEvictionRate, "secondary-node-eviction-rate", 0.01, "Number of nodes per second on which pods are deleted in case of node failure when a zone is unhealthy (see --unhealthy-zone-threshold for definition of healthy/unhealthy). Zone refers to entire cluster in non-multizone clusters. This value is implicitly overridden to 0 if the cluster size is smaller than --large-cluster-size-threshold.") | |||
fs.Int32Var(&o.LargeClusterSizeThreshold, "large-cluster-size-threshold", 50, "Number of nodes from which NodeController treats the cluster as large for the eviction logic purposes. --secondary-node-eviction-rate is implicitly overridden to 0 for clusters this size or smaller.") | |||
fs.Float32Var(&o.UnhealthyZoneThreshold, "unhealthy-zone-threshold", 0.55, "Fraction of Nodes in a zone which needs to be not Ready (minimum 3) for zone to be treated as unhealthy. ") | |||
fs.BoolVar(&o.EnableTaintManager, "enable-taint-manager", o.EnableTaintManager, "WARNING: Beta feature. If set to true enables NoExecute Taints and will evict all not-tolerating Pod running on Nodes tainted with this kind of Taints.") | |||
fs.BoolVar(&o.EnableTaintManager, "enable-taint-manager", o.EnableTaintManager, "If set to true enables NoExecute Taints and will evict all not-tolerating Pod running on Nodes tainted with this kind of Taints.") |
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 flag functional today? What if someone doesn't want to run this?
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 functional. If you set it to false, the older codepath runs. But we can't keep maintaining that path.
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.
@damemi I think you graduated this to GA. Was this CLI flag left on purpose?
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.
@alculquicondor no, I think it was just an oversight, didn't realize there was a command-line flag along with the feature gates so that's probably why it got overlooked.
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 have the same question as @lavalamp, this patch is based on an assumption that all people need to run taint manager, is that true?
If you set it to false, the older codepath runs. But we can't keep maintaining that path.
In addition, I'm thinking what's the benefit we can get from the deprecation work. Seems like it helps reduce the maintenance effort, right?
Can you give a link to the older codepath
?
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.
this patch is based on an assumption that all people need to run taint manager
The assumption is that the newer codepath does everything that the older codepath does, so there is no need to keep maintaining both.
In addition, I'm thinking what's the benefit we can get from the deprecation work. Seems like it helps reduce the maintenance effort, right?
Yes. This deprecation is motivated by #110959, where we were wondering if we should add new logic to this old codepath. And it doesn't really make sense to do so.
Can you give a link to the older codepath?
It's hard to visualize, but it's embedded in https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/pkg/controller/nodelifecycle/node_lifecycle_controller.go
when runTaintManager=false
/retest |
This PR may require API review. If so, when the changes are ready, complete the pre-review checklist and request an API review. Status of requested reviews is tracked in the API Review project. |
/cc @deads2k |
Can we have this PR approved this week and keep on hold in case someone objects before the codefreeze? /hold |
Sure. /approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: alculquicondor, lavalamp 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 |
/hold cancel there was no push back |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
/kind api-change
What this PR does / why we need it:
The taint manager supports the feature TaintBasedEvictions, which is GA since 1.18. We don't want to continue supporting the older path.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: