Revert "kube-dns-anti-affinity: kube-dns never-co-located-in-the-same-node"

[shyamjvs]

Reverts #52193

As this has slowed down scheduling of kube-dns pods significantly (fixes #54164)

/cc @bowei @MrHohn @StevenACoffman

[k8s-ci-robot]

@shyamjvs: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: StevenACoffman.

Note that only kubernetes members can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

Reverts #52193

As this has slowed down scheduling of kube-dns pods significantly (ref #54164)

/cc @bowei @MrHohn @StevenACoffman

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.

[MrHohn]

/lgtm

[k8s-github-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: MrHohn, shyamjvs

Associated issue: 52193

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

• cluster/addons/dns/OWNERS [MrHohn]

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[k8s-ci-robot]

@shyamjvs: Adding do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed because the release note process has not been followed.

One of the following labels is required "release-note", "release-note-action-required", or "release-note-none".
Please see: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/pull-requests.md#write-release-notes-if-needed.

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.

[shyamjvs]

/retest

[shyamjvs]

/retest

[k8s-github-robot]

Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions here.

[wojtek-t]

@davidopp @bsalamat @kubernetes/sig-scheduling-misc - FYI
I think we should officially admit (somewhere in documentation) that Pod AntiAffinity is not fully production ready and shouldn't be used in any clusters with non-trivial size.

[bsalamat]

I think we should officially admit (somewhere in documentation) that Pod AntiAffinity is not fully production ready and shouldn't be used in any clusters with non-trivial size.

Yes, I agree. I will update the document.

[StevenACoffman]

Sorry for the delay.I agree this was the correct thing to do. Should I consider creating an issue such that when the Pod AntiAffinity performance improves the #52193 (or something like it) should be reconsidered?

[bsalamat]

@StevenACoffman Yes, we can have this config back after we fix #54189.