Skip to content
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

Move RunNormalizeScorePlugins and ApplyScoreWeights into RunScorePlugins; Also add unit tests for RunScorePlugins. #81614

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 21, 2019

Conversation

liu-cong
Copy link
Contributor

What type of PR is this?

Uncomment only one /kind <> line, hit enter to put that in a new line, and remove leading whitespaces from that line:

/kind api-change
/kind bug
/kind design
/kind documentation
/kind failing-test
/kind feature
/kind flake

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:
Normalizing scores and applying score weights are details of the Score phase in the framework that the caller (generic_scheduler) doesn't need to care about. With this change, RunScorePlugins method now also runs the normalize and apply score weights logic internally. The change has the following benefits:

  • Hides details from outside makes the code easy to use and less error prone
    Previously caller had to call 3 methods in the right order.

  • Simplifies the code and unit tests.
    Previously we had to check that score results exists for each plugin in the fear that the score result map could get updated in between the 3 methods. Now the map is an internal data structure and the caller cannot intervene with it during Score.

This is a follow up to a previous comment: One thing we can do to avoid those extra checks and simplify the code in generic_scheduler is to make both RunNormalizeScorePlugins and ApplyWeights private functions of the framework and call them directly at the end of RunScorePlugins.

@hex108, @ahg-g

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Contributes to #80272

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 k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Aug 19, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @liu-cong. 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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. sig/scheduling Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Scheduling. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Aug 19, 2019
@alculquicondor
Copy link
Member

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Aug 19, 2019
@liu-cong
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-device-plugin-gpu

Copy link
Contributor

@wgliang wgliang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 20, 2019
pkg/scheduler/framework/v1alpha1/framework.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/scheduler/framework/v1alpha1/framework_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/scheduler/framework/v1alpha1/framework_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/scheduler/framework/v1alpha1/framework_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/scheduler/framework/v1alpha1/framework_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 20, 2019
func (f *framework) RunNormalizeScorePlugins(pc *PluginContext, pod *v1.Pod, scores PluginToNodeScores) *Status {
ctx, cancel := context.WithCancel(context.Background())
errCh := schedutil.NewErrorChannel()
// Run NormalizeScore method for each ScoreWithNormalizePlugin in parallel.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why not keep the functions and just make them local (normalizeScores and applyScoreWeights)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just found the 3 steps are very similar (parallel execution and receive error) and it looks good to me to put them in the same function (saves a few lines of code). But no particular reason really.

If you like the separately, I can change it.

…ins; Also add unit tests for RunScorePlugins.
@ahg-g
Copy link
Member

ahg-g commented Aug 20, 2019

/lgtm
/approve

Thanks Cong

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 20, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahg-g, liu-cong

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 20, 2019
@liu-cong
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test pull-kubernetes-kubemark-e2e-gce-big

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 90df64b into kubernetes:master Aug 21, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.16 milestone Aug 21, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/scheduling Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Scheduling. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants