cleanup: Refactor BaseEndpointInfo to cache IP and Port values #120104

togettoyou · 2023-08-22T09:56:32Z

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

This commit refactors the BaseEndpointInfo struct to add two new fields: ip and port. These fields are used to cache the IP and Port values to improve performance.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

k8s-ci-robot · 2023-08-22T09:56:41Z

Hi @togettoyou. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

aojea · 2023-08-22T10:07:52Z

pkg/proxy/iptables/proxier.go

@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ type endpointsInfo struct {
 func newEndpointInfo(baseInfo *proxy.BaseEndpointInfo, svcPortName *proxy.ServicePortName) proxy.Endpoint {
 	return &endpointsInfo{
 		BaseEndpointInfo: baseInfo,
-		ChainName:        servicePortEndpointChainName(svcPortName.String(), strings.ToLower(string(svcPortName.Protocol)), baseInfo.Endpoint),
+		ChainName:        servicePortEndpointChainName(svcPortName.String(), strings.ToLower(string(svcPortName.Protocol)), baseInfo.Endpoint.String()),


I have doubts this improves performance, since we need to concatenate IP port in each of these calls

Yes, currently the endpointString struct only stores the IP and Port, so the proxier doesn't need to perform additional parsing to extract them. However, for the String method, concatenation is needed.

I can add an endpoint field to the endpointString struct:

type endpointString struct { IP string Port int endpoint string } func (e *endpointString) String() string { if e.endpoint == "" { e.endpoint = net.JoinHostPort(e.IP, strconv.Itoa(e.Port)) } return e.endpoint }

What do you think?

I just saw you claimed the performance improvement, and I was wondering how we can know if we regress or improve, without that information is hard to evaluate if this change is necessary

https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/pkg/proxy/iptables/proxier.go#L1371

https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/pkg/proxy/ipvs/proxier.go#L1051

At least here, there is no need to repeatedly extract the Endpoint string when calling the IP() and Port() methods.

Do you have any suggestions for performance improvement testing?

togettoyou · 2023-08-23T01:54:47Z

When the Endpoint is of type string :

func BenchmarkEndpointIP(b *testing.B) {
	info := &BaseEndpointInfo{
		Endpoint: "1.1.1.1:11",
	}

	for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
		_ = info.IP()
	}
}

func BenchmarkEndpointPort(b *testing.B) {
	info := &BaseEndpointInfo{
		Endpoint: "1.1.1.1:11",
	}

	for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
		_, _ = info.Port()
	}
}

func BenchmarkEndpointString(b *testing.B) {
	info := &BaseEndpointInfo{
		Endpoint: "1.1.1.1:11",
	}

	for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
		_ = info.String()
	}
}

goos: windows
goarch: amd64
pkg: k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/proxy
cpu: 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-11300H @ 3.10GHz

BenchmarkEndpointIP
BenchmarkEndpointIP-8            6057644               189.8 ns/op

BenchmarkEndpointPort
BenchmarkEndpointPort-8         39769996                28.53 ns/op

BenchmarkEndpointString
BenchmarkEndpointString-8       1000000000               0.4417 ns/op

When the Endpoint is of type endpointString :

func BenchmarkEndpointIP(b *testing.B) {
	info := &BaseEndpointInfo{
		Endpoint: endpointString{
			IP:   "1.1.1.1",
			Port: 11,
		},
	}

	for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
		_ = info.IP()
	}
}

func BenchmarkEndpointPort(b *testing.B) {
	info := &BaseEndpointInfo{
		Endpoint: endpointString{
			IP:   "1.1.1.1",
			Port: 11,
		},
	}

	for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
		_, _ = info.Port()
	}
}

func BenchmarkEndpointString(b *testing.B) {
	info := &BaseEndpointInfo{
		Endpoint: endpointString{
			IP:   "1.1.1.1",
			Port: 11,
		},
	}

	for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
		_ = info.String()
	}
}

goos: windows
goarch: amd64
pkg: k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/proxy
cpu: 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-11300H @ 3.10GHz

BenchmarkEndpointIP
BenchmarkEndpointIP-8           1000000000               0.2925 ns/op

BenchmarkEndpointPort
BenchmarkEndpointPort-8         1000000000               0.2472 ns/op

BenchmarkEndpointString
BenchmarkEndpointString-8       673348149                1.834 ns/op

togettoyou · 2023-08-23T01:58:15Z

Hey @aojea , Can this be used as an evaluation method?

togettoyou · 2023-08-23T02:07:16Z

pkg/proxy/endpoints.go

+	endpoint string
+}
+
+func NewEndpointString(s string) endpointString {


Currently, the NewEndpointString method is mainly used in *_test.go files, and I am not sure if it needs to return an err

aojea · 2023-08-23T08:45:49Z

ok, so both epInfo.IP( )and epInfo.String() are called in the same loop, so we can assume both are going to be called the same number of times

kubernetes/pkg/proxy/iptables/proxier.go

Lines 1353 to 1378 in fb785f1

    
           for _, ep := range allLocallyReachableEndpoints { 
        
           	epInfo, ok := ep.(*endpointsInfo) 
        
           	if !ok { 
        
           		klog.ErrorS(nil, "Failed to cast endpointsInfo", "endpointsInfo", ep) 
        
           		continue 
        
           	} 
        
           	endpointChain := epInfo.ChainName 
        
           	// Create the endpoint chain 
        
           	natChains.Write(utiliptables.MakeChainLine(endpointChain)) 
        
           	activeNATChains[endpointChain] = true 
        
           	args = append(args[:0], "-A", string(endpointChain)) 
        
           	args = proxier.appendServiceCommentLocked(args, svcPortNameString) 
        
           	// Handle traffic that loops back to the originator with SNAT. 
        
           	natRules.Write( 
        
           		args, 
        
           		"-s", epInfo.IP(), 
        
           		"-j", string(kubeMarkMasqChain)) 
        
           	// Update client-affinity lists. 
        
           	if svcInfo.SessionAffinityType() == v1.ServiceAffinityClientIP { 
        
           		args = append(args, "-m", "recent", "--name", string(endpointChain), "--set") 
        
           	} 
        
           	// DNAT to final destination. 
        
           	args = append(args, "-m", protocol, "-p", protocol, "-j", "DNAT", "--to-destination", epInfo.Endpoint)

The benchmarks shows something that is expected, concatenation is faster than splitting

BenchmarkEndpointIP-8 6057644 189.8 ns/op

BenchmarkEndpointString-8 673348149 1.834 ns/op

There is one solution for these problems, that is sacrificing memory to cache the value instead of generating it each time

I do not know if we need to complicate this further creating a new type, and just adding the values to the BaseEndpointInfoshould be enough

diff --git a/pkg/proxy/endpoints.go b/pkg/proxy/endpoints.go
index fd1e9485cdb..5ab519ca988 100644
--- a/pkg/proxy/endpoints.go
+++ b/pkg/proxy/endpoints.go
@@ -30,7 +30,6 @@ import (
        "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/types"
        "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/sets"
        "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/proxy/metrics"
-       proxyutil "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/proxy/util"
 )
 
 var supportedEndpointSliceAddressTypes = sets.New[string](
@@ -43,7 +42,11 @@ var supportedEndpointSliceAddressTypes = sets.New[string](
 // or can be used for constructing a more specific EndpointInfo struct
 // defined by the proxier if needed.
 type BaseEndpointInfo struct {
-       Endpoint string // TODO: should be an endpointString type
+       // Cache this values to improve performance
+       ip   string
+       port int
+       // Endpoint is the same as net.JoinHostPort(ip,port)
+       Endpoint string
        // IsLocal indicates whether the endpoint is running in same host as kube-proxy.
        IsLocal bool
 
@@ -109,12 +112,12 @@ func (info *BaseEndpointInfo) GetZoneHints() sets.Set[string] {
 
 // IP returns just the IP part of the endpoint, it's a part of proxy.Endpoint interface.
 func (info *BaseEndpointInfo) IP() string {
-       return proxyutil.IPPart(info.Endpoint)
+       return info.ip
 }
 
 // Port returns just the Port part of the endpoint.
 func (info *BaseEndpointInfo) Port() (int, error) {
-       return proxyutil.PortPart(info.Endpoint)
+       return info.port, nil
 }
 
 // Equal is part of proxy.Endpoint interface.
@@ -137,6 +140,8 @@ func (info *BaseEndpointInfo) GetZone() string {
 func newBaseEndpointInfo(IP, nodeName, zone string, port int, isLocal bool,
        ready, serving, terminating bool, zoneHints sets.Set[string]) *BaseEndpointInfo {
        return &BaseEndpointInfo{
+               ip:          IP,
+               port:        port,
                Endpoint:    net.JoinHostPort(IP, strconv.Itoa(port)),
                IsLocal:     isLocal,
                Ready:       ready,

togettoyou · 2023-08-23T09:47:59Z

Thank you @aojea , It seems that your changes have the smallest impact, but I'm not sure which one is better. Does anyone else have any suggestions?

Also, I found that before I added the endpoint string field to the endpointString struct , endpoints_test.go was working fine.

But after adding it in this commit (0891fe2), it stopped working. I tried your version, but the same problem occurred.

kubernetes/pkg/proxy/endpoints_test.go

Lines 1592 to 1609 in fb785f1

    
           "removing port in update": { 
        
           	endpointChangeTracker: NewEndpointChangeTracker("", nil, v1.IPv4Protocol, nil, nil), 
        
           	expectedChanges: []*endpointsChange{{ 
        
           		previous: EndpointsMap{ 
        
           			svcPortName0: []Endpoint{newTestEp("10.0.1.1:80", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.2:80", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.3:80", "host1", false, false, false)}, 
        
           			svcPortName1: []Endpoint{newTestEp("10.0.1.1:443", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.2:443", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.3:443", "host1", false, false, false)}, 
        
           		}, 
        
           		current: EndpointsMap{ 
        
           			svcPortName0: []Endpoint{newTestEp("10.0.1.1:80", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.2:80", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.3:80", "host1", false, false, false)}, 
        
           		}, 
        
           	}}, 
        
           	appliedSlices: []*discovery.EndpointSlice{ 
        
           		generateEndpointSlice("svc1", "ns1", 1, 3, 3, 999, []string{"host1"}, []*int32{pointer.Int32(80), pointer.Int32(443)}), 
        
           	}, 
        
           	pendingSlices: []*discovery.EndpointSlice{ 
        
           		generateEndpointSlice("svc1", "ns1", 1, 3, 3, 999, []string{"host1"}, []*int32{pointer.Int32(80)}), 
        
           	}, 
        
           },

=== RUN   TestCheckoutChanges
--- FAIL: TestCheckoutChanges (0.00s)
=== RUN   TestCheckoutChanges/removing_port_in_update
    endpoints_test.go:1631: [0] Expected change.previous: map[ns1/svc1:port-0:[10.0.1.1:80 10.0.1.2:80 10.0.1.3:80] ns1/svc1:port-1:[10.0.1.1:443 10.0.1.2:443 10.0.1.3:443]], got: map[ns1/svc1:port-0:[10.0.1.1:80 10.0.1.2:80 10.0.1.3:80] ns1/svc1:port-1:[10.0.1.1:443 10.0.1.2:443 10.0.1.3:443]]
    endpoints_test.go:1635: [0] Expected change.current: map[ns1/svc1:port-0:[10.0.1.1:80 10.0.1.2:80 10.0.1.3:80]], got: map[ns1/svc1:port-0:[10.0.1.1:80 10.0.1.2:80 10.0.1.3:80]]
    --- FAIL: TestCheckoutChanges/removing_port_in_update (0.00s)

What could be the reason for this? You can try your modified version as well, it should have the same problem.

togettoyou · 2023-08-24T01:31:14Z

Thank you @aojea , It seems that your changes have the smallest impact, but I'm not sure which one is better. Does anyone else have any suggestions?

Also, I found that before I added the endpoint string field to the endpointString struct , endpoints_test.go was working fine.

But after adding it in this commit (0891fe2), it stopped working. I tried your version, but the same problem occurred.

kubernetes/pkg/proxy/endpoints_test.go

Lines 1592 to 1609 in fb785f1

"removing port in update": {

endpointChangeTracker: NewEndpointChangeTracker("", nil, v1.IPv4Protocol, nil, nil),

expectedChanges: []*endpointsChange{{

previous: EndpointsMap{

svcPortName0: []Endpoint{newTestEp("10.0.1.1:80", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.2:80", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.3:80", "host1", false, false, false)},

svcPortName1: []Endpoint{newTestEp("10.0.1.1:443", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.2:443", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.3:443", "host1", false, false, false)},

},

current: EndpointsMap{

svcPortName0: []Endpoint{newTestEp("10.0.1.1:80", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.2:80", "host1", true, true, false), newTestEp("10.0.1.3:80", "host1", false, false, false)},

},

}},

appliedSlices: []*discovery.EndpointSlice{

generateEndpointSlice("svc1", "ns1", 1, 3, 3, 999, []string{"host1"}, []*int32{pointer.Int32(80), pointer.Int32(443)}),

},

pendingSlices: []*discovery.EndpointSlice{

generateEndpointSlice("svc1", "ns1", 1, 3, 3, 999, []string{"host1"}, []*int32{pointer.Int32(80)}),

},

},
=== RUN   TestCheckoutChanges
--- FAIL: TestCheckoutChanges (0.00s)
=== RUN   TestCheckoutChanges/removing_port_in_update
    endpoints_test.go:1631: [0] Expected change.previous: map[ns1/svc1:port-0:[10.0.1.1:80 10.0.1.2:80 10.0.1.3:80] ns1/svc1:port-1:[10.0.1.1:443 10.0.1.2:443 10.0.1.3:443]], got: map[ns1/svc1:port-0:[10.0.1.1:80 10.0.1.2:80 10.0.1.3:80] ns1/svc1:port-1:[10.0.1.1:443 10.0.1.2:443 10.0.1.3:443]]
    endpoints_test.go:1635: [0] Expected change.current: map[ns1/svc1:port-0:[10.0.1.1:80 10.0.1.2:80 10.0.1.3:80]], got: map[ns1/svc1:port-0:[10.0.1.1:80 10.0.1.2:80 10.0.1.3:80]]
    --- FAIL: TestCheckoutChanges/removing_port_in_update (0.00s)
What could be the reason for this? You can try your modified version as well, it should have the same problem.

I have found the issue that caused the unit test to fail.

kubernetes/pkg/proxy/endpoints_test.go

Line 1634 in fb785f1

if !reflect.DeepEqual(change.current, expectedChange.current) {

It was because change.current called a endpointInfo.String() method, while expectedChange.current did not. This resulted in the endpoint value of endpointString being empty, leading to a discrepancy.

kubernetes/pkg/proxy/endpointslicecache.go

Lines 315 to 316 in fb785f1

    
           if _, exists := endpointSet[endpointInfo.String()]; !exists || isLocal { 
        
           	endpointSet[endpointInfo.String()] = cache.makeEndpointInfo(endpointInfo, svcPortName)

Similarly, in your version, the issue was caused by expectedChange.current calling the newTestEp method without passing in the ip and port parameters. This resulted in a discrepancy when using reflect.DeepEqual for comparison.

kubernetes/pkg/proxy/endpoints_test.go

Lines 1673 to 1674 in fb785f1

    
           func newTestEp(ep, host string, ready, serving, terminating bool) *BaseEndpointInfo { 
        
           	endpointInfo := &BaseEndpointInfo{Endpoint: ep, Ready: ready, Serving: serving, Terminating: terminating}

I will fix my PR to ensure that the unit test can pass successfully.

togettoyou · 2023-08-24T02:15:10Z

Hi @aojea , I have made a modification to the endpointString type. I believe that introducing the endpointString type will make it clearer than directly adding the ip and port fields.

The NewEndpointString method is mainly used for compatibility with unit tests.

Otherwise, many places would require importing the ip and port fields separately.

danwinship · 2023-08-29T13:21:04Z

I do not know if we need to complicate this further creating a new type, and just adding the values to the BaseEndpointInfoshould be enough

Agreed. The type doesn't add much.

danwinship · 2023-08-29T13:21:19Z

pkg/proxy/endpoints.go

 }

 // Port returns just the Port part of the endpoint.
 func (info *BaseEndpointInfo) Port() (int, error) {
-	return proxyutil.PortPart(info.Endpoint)
+	return info.Endpoint.port, nil
 }


there's no need for this to still return an error, since it can't fail

this will require modifying the Endpoint interface

now it should still return an err

this will require modifying the Endpoint interface

That's fine; these are all internal APIs. You can fix all of the consumers as well.

this will require modifying the Endpoint interface

That's fine; these are all internal APIs. You can fix all of the consumers as well.

I have resubmitted it and now I need to keep returning err.

danwinship · 2023-08-29T13:26:33Z

pkg/proxy/topology_test.go

-			&BaseEndpointInfo{Endpoint: "10.1.2.4:80", ZoneHints: sets.New[string]("zone-b"), Ready: true},
-			&BaseEndpointInfo{Endpoint: "10.1.2.5:80", ZoneHints: sets.New[string]("zone-c"), Ready: true},
-			&BaseEndpointInfo{Endpoint: "10.1.2.6:80", ZoneHints: sets.New[string]("zone-a"), Ready: true},
+			&BaseEndpointInfo{Endpoint: NewEndpointString("10.1.2.3:80"), ZoneHints: sets.New[string]("zone-a"), Ready: true},


these can use newBaseEndpointInfo (or else some new helper function just in this file)

I have made the modifications, and the changes are minimal, ensuring full compatibility with the previous unit tests.

danwinship · 2023-10-26T02:34:26Z

ok, #121097 is merged. You should be able to rebase on top of that now...

togettoyou · 2023-10-26T03:36:36Z

ok, #121097 is merged. You should be able to rebase on top of that now...

ready ok-to-test

danwinship · 2023-10-27T15:00:37Z

pkg/proxy/winkernel/proxier.go

-	if err != nil {
-		portNumber = 0
-	}
+	portNumber := baseInfo.Port()


you could just do this inline below, now that you don't need to deal with an error (like it does with ip: baseInfo.IP())

yes, I overlooked it.

danwinship · 2023-10-27T15:03:22Z

/ok-to-test
/remove-lifecycle rotten
/triage accepted
/lgtm
/approve

Looks good. Sorry for getting your nice simple improvement stuck behind my big refactoring, but I think the end result is better.

k8s-ci-robot · 2023-10-27T15:03:29Z

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: cd709d67fb76c8a13f10f4253bf91050fada0ec4

k8s-ci-robot · 2023-10-27T15:04:12Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: danwinship, togettoyou

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:

~~pkg/proxy/OWNERS~~ [danwinship]

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

togettoyou · 2023-10-27T16:14:17Z

/retest

danwinship · 2023-10-27T19:24:20Z

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot · 2023-10-27T19:24:26Z

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: db403040068ab6167b01cbbd62dd4154622f1ad2

k8s-ci-robot requested review from dcbw and justinsb August 22, 2023 09:57

aojea reviewed Aug 22, 2023

View reviewed changes

togettoyou requested a review from aojea August 22, 2023 12:10

togettoyou commented Aug 23, 2023

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 24, 2023

togettoyou force-pushed the cleanup_endpoints branch 2 times, most recently from f38f391 to 38931e8 Compare August 29, 2023 02:23

danwinship reviewed Aug 29, 2023

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 13, 2023

dims added the lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. label Oct 24, 2023

togettoyou force-pushed the cleanup_endpoints branch from 7690e6f to 84a2633 Compare October 26, 2023 03:33

k8s-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 26, 2023

danwinship reviewed Oct 27, 2023

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned danwinship Oct 27, 2023

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 27, 2023

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 27, 2023

cleanup: Refactor BaseEndpointInfo to cache IP and Port values

7a91051

togettoyou force-pushed the cleanup_endpoints branch from 84a2633 to 7a91051 Compare October 27, 2023 16:11

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 27, 2023

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from danwinship October 27, 2023 16:11

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 27, 2023

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 28, 2023

k8s-ci-robot merged commit b8693aa into kubernetes:master Oct 28, 2023
15 checks passed

k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.29 milestone Oct 28, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

cleanup: Refactor BaseEndpointInfo to cache IP and Port values #120104

cleanup: Refactor BaseEndpointInfo to cache IP and Port values #120104

togettoyou commented Aug 22, 2023 •

edited

k8s-ci-robot commented Aug 22, 2023

aojea Aug 22, 2023

togettoyou Aug 22, 2023

aojea Aug 22, 2023

togettoyou Aug 22, 2023

togettoyou commented Aug 23, 2023

togettoyou commented Aug 23, 2023

togettoyou Aug 23, 2023

aojea commented Aug 23, 2023 •

edited

togettoyou commented Aug 23, 2023

togettoyou commented Aug 24, 2023

togettoyou commented Aug 24, 2023

danwinship commented Aug 29, 2023

danwinship Aug 29, 2023

togettoyou Aug 30, 2023

togettoyou Aug 30, 2023

danwinship Sep 1, 2023

togettoyou Sep 2, 2023

danwinship Aug 29, 2023

togettoyou Aug 30, 2023

danwinship commented Oct 26, 2023

togettoyou commented Oct 26, 2023

danwinship Oct 27, 2023

togettoyou Oct 27, 2023

danwinship commented Oct 27, 2023

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 27, 2023

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 27, 2023

togettoyou commented Oct 27, 2023

danwinship commented Oct 27, 2023

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 27, 2023

cleanup: Refactor BaseEndpointInfo to cache IP and Port values #120104

cleanup: Refactor BaseEndpointInfo to cache IP and Port values #120104

Conversation

togettoyou commented Aug 22, 2023 • edited

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR 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.:

k8s-ci-robot commented Aug 22, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

togettoyou commented Aug 23, 2023

togettoyou commented Aug 23, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

aojea commented Aug 23, 2023 • edited

togettoyou commented Aug 23, 2023

togettoyou commented Aug 24, 2023

togettoyou commented Aug 24, 2023

danwinship commented Aug 29, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

danwinship commented Oct 26, 2023

togettoyou commented Oct 26, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

danwinship commented Oct 27, 2023

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 27, 2023

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 27, 2023

togettoyou commented Oct 27, 2023

danwinship commented Oct 27, 2023

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 27, 2023

togettoyou commented Aug 22, 2023 •

edited

aojea commented Aug 23, 2023 •

edited