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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Improve performance of EvenPodSpread (priority and predicate) #84936

Closed
alculquicondor opened this issue Nov 7, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #89665
Closed

Improve performance of EvenPodSpread (priority and predicate) #84936

alculquicondor opened this issue Nov 7, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #89665
Assignees
@alculquicondor
Labels
kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. sig/scheduling Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Scheduling.

Comments

@alculquicondor
Copy link
Member

In the light of a new performance test that compares EvenPodSpread with SelectorSpread (#84606), it seems that EvenPodSpread can be faster.

Let's investigate if we can achieve parity by carefully building the data structures.

/sig scheduling
@alculquicondor alculquicondor added the kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Nov 7, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the sig/scheduling Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Scheduling. label Nov 7, 2019
@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor

gongguan commented Nov 9, 2019 •
edited

buildPodTopologySpreadMap is expensive and will affect the result. Could it be initialized once outside the loop?

kubernetes/pkg/scheduler/algorithm/priorities/spreading_perf_test.go

Line 63 in 9920b73

podTopologySpreadMap: buildPodTopologySpreadMap(pod, filteredNodes, snapshot.NodeInfoList),

@alculquicondor
Copy link
Member Author

That goes against the purpose of the test: an end-to-end comparison.

@alculquicondor alculquicondor mentioned this issue Nov 12, 2019
Merged
@fejta-bot
Copy link

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Feb 7, 2020
@alculquicondor
Copy link
Member Author

/remove-lifecycle stale

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Feb 28, 2020
@alculquicondor alculquicondor mentioned this issue Feb 28, 2020
Merged
@alculquicondor
Copy link
Member Author

/assign

This was referenced Mar 30, 2020
Merged
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@alculquicondor alculquicondor

Labels
kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. sig/scheduling Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Scheduling.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Optimize topology spreading filter alculquicondor/kubernetes
4 participants
@alculquicondor @gongguan @k8s-ci-robot @fejta-bot