-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38.7k
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
hotfix when a plugin (in-tree or out-of-tree) return non-existent/illegal nodes, the pod scheduling flow will abort immediately. #124559
hotfix when a plugin (in-tree or out-of-tree) return non-existent/illegal nodes, the pod scheduling flow will abort immediately. #124559
Conversation
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The 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. |
Hi @chengjoey. 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 Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the 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. |
/ok-to-test |
Also, let's wait for #124539 to merge and also cherry-pick in this same PR. |
/test pull-kubernetes-unit |
/test pull-kubernetes-unit-go-compatibility |
I don't think the tests are flaky. Maybe they are making some assumptions about the nodes existing. If it becomes too much burden to fix them, I think we should just cherry-pick the entire original PR #119779 |
27c4ec4
to
6e12ecf
Compare
the tests are not flaky, but the original PR 119779 also modified the test, but the test was not changed just now, so it is normal now |
It's b/c @sanposhiho 's PR introduced a change to set UnschedulableAndUnresolvable to each node that's filtered out by PreFilterResult: kubernetes/pkg/scheduler/schedule_one.go Lines 486 to 497 in 7d880fd
And the logic of counting kubernetes/pkg/scheduler/schedule_one.go Line 501 in 7d880fd
So it caused the UT's change, but it's not a big issue IMHO. @chengjoey could you also incorporate d382150 into this PR? |
(cherry picked from commit 9fcd791)
cherry-pick #124714 |
@chengjoey Please exclude it from this PR. The cheery-pick for mine should be separated. I'll prepare the one. |
Oh, wait. @alculquicondor, did you intend to include a cherry-pick for #124709 in this PR?
|
/test pull-kubernetes-integration-go-compatibility |
1.29 and older are currently unaffected. They will only be affected if this PR merges. Thus, we should include the performance fix. |
/approve |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 693334c8e36df57a41a6a3bbb24eab62fa8f607a
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: alculquicondor, chengjoey 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 |
Anything we are missing? otherwise, I think you can prepare the cherry-picks for 1.28 and 1.27 based on this PR |
there are some conflicts in schedule_one_test, in 1.27 and 1.28, so manual cherry-pick |
/kind regression |
…59-upstream-release-1.27 Manual cherry pick of #124559 upstream release 1.27
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.
/lgtm
(Release Managers)
…59-upstream-release-1.28 Manual cherry pick of #124559 upstream release 1.28
The Kubernetes project has merge-blocking tests that are currently too flaky to consistently pass. This bot retests PRs for certain kubernetes repos according to the following rules:
You can:
/retest |
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
this is a minimum fix from #119779
In versions 1.27-1.29, if there is a non-existent node in the PreFilterResult, the pod schedule will fail.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #123465
Special notes for your reviewer: @Huang-Wei @alculquicondor
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?