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

Do not ignore unscheduled pods when NodeName not in set of worker nodes #92545

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 28, 2020
Merged

Do not ignore unscheduled pods when NodeName not in set of worker nodes #92545

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 28, 2020

Conversation

hasheddan
Copy link
Contributor

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

When node scheduling tests were updated to use worker instead of master
nodes the GetPodsScheduled function, which is tasked with getting all
scheduled and not scheduled pods inadvertently was changed to ignore all
pods that have an empty NodeName before checking whether pods had been
scheduled or not. This updates the function to include pods without a
NodeName in the check for unscheduled pods.

Signed-off-by: hasheddan georgedanielmangum@gmail.com

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Relevant issues for failing tests: #92511 #92502

Follow up to #92509

Special notes for your reviewer:

Original PR: #92450

/cc @oomichi @BenTheElder

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

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

@hasheddan
Do not ignore unscheduled pods when NodeName not in set of worker nodes
9ab31af 
When node scheduling tests were updated to use worker instead of master
nodes the GetPodsScheduled function, which is tasked with getting all
scheduled and not scheduled pods inadvertently was changed to ignore all
pods that have an empty NodeName before checking whether pods had been
scheduled or not. This updates the function to include pods without a
NodeName in the check for unscheduled pods.

Signed-off-by: hasheddan <georgedanielmangum@gmail.com>
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 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 Jun 26, 2020
@hasheddan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/priority critical-urgent
/sig scheduling

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added priority/critical-urgent Highest priority. Must be actively worked on as someone's top priority right now. sig/scheduling Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Scheduling. area/test sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. and removed needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Jun 26, 2020
@hasheddan
Copy link
Contributor Author

The following tests are currently being affected across a number of jobs:
[sig-scheduling] SchedulerPredicates [Serial] validates resource limits of pods that are allowed to run [Conformance]
[sig-scheduling] SchedulerPredicates [Serial] validates that NodeSelector is respected if not matching [Conformance]

@hasheddan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/assign @ahg-g

@hasheddan
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is a good one to look at for more context: https://prow.k8s.io/view/gcs/kubernetes-jenkins/logs/ci-kubernetes-gce-conformance-latest/1276467007495081987

hasheddan
hasheddan commented Jun 26, 2020
View reviewed changes
test/e2e/scheduling/predicates.go
@@ -1045,23 +1045,20 @@ func translateIPv4ToIPv6(ip string) string {
// GetPodsScheduled returns a number of currently scheduled and not scheduled Pods on worker nodes.
func GetPodsScheduled(workerNodes sets.String, pods *v1.PodList) (scheduledPods, notScheduledPods []v1.Pod) {
for _, pod := range pods.Items {
if workerNodes.Has(pod.Spec.NodeName) {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Previously this was if !masterNodes.Has(pod.Spec.NodeName) so this isn't fully going back to the same functionality. The check for unscheduled nodes could consider master nodes in this case, but from my understanding of this check that would be fine.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Very reasonable change for me.
Why we checked the NodeName is in names of workerNodes before checking the NodeName is empty (^^;)

@hasheddan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

1 similar comment
@hasheddan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@Huang-Wei
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/approve

Thanks @hasheddan !

/hold
in case @oomichi wants to take another look.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 26, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 26, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: hasheddan, Huang-Wei

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 Jun 26, 2020
oomichi
oomichi reviewed Jun 26, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@oomichi oomichi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@hasheddan Thanks for doing this again.

/lgtm
/hold cancel

test/e2e/scheduling/predicates.go
@@ -1045,23 +1045,20 @@ func translateIPv4ToIPv6(ip string) string {
// GetPodsScheduled returns a number of currently scheduled and not scheduled Pods on worker nodes.
func GetPodsScheduled(workerNodes sets.String, pods *v1.PodList) (scheduledPods, notScheduledPods []v1.Pod) {
for _, pod := range pods.Items {
if workerNodes.Has(pod.Spec.NodeName) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Very reasonable change for me.
Why we checked the NodeName is in names of workerNodes before checking the NodeName is empty (^^;)

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 26, 2020
@hasheddan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

2 similar comments
@BenTheElder
Copy link
Member

/retest

@Huang-Wei
Copy link
Member

/retest

@BenTheElder
Copy link
Member

#92563
/retest

@BenTheElder
Copy link
Member

BenTheElder commented Jun 27, 2020 via email

@hasheddan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

1 similar comment
@hasheddan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@hasheddan: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-ubuntu-containerd 9ab31af link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-ubuntu-containerd
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance 9ab31af link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@hasheddan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 18db08b into kubernetes:master Jun 28, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.19 milestone Jun 28, 2020
@hasheddan hasheddan mentioned this pull request Jun 29, 2020
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@oomichi oomichi oomichi left review comments

@BenTheElder BenTheElder Awaiting requested review from BenTheElder

Assignees

@oomichi oomichi

@Huang-Wei Huang-Wei

@ahg-g ahg-g

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/test cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. priority/critical-urgent Highest priority. Must be actively worked on as someone's top priority right now. 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. sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.19
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
7 participants
@hasheddan @Huang-Wei @k8s-ci-robot @BenTheElder @fejta-bot @oomichi @ahg-g