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

Jump to bottom

Graduate DefaultPodTopologySpread to beta #95631

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 20, 2020
Merged

Graduate DefaultPodTopologySpread to beta #95631

merged 1 commit into from Oct 20, 2020

Conversation

alculquicondor
Copy link
Member

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

Graduate DefaultPodTopologySpread to beta and enable the feature gate by default.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #94863

kubernetes/enhancements#1258

Special notes for your reviewer:

Implementation requirements are fulfilled
https://git.k8s.io/enhancements/keps/sig-scheduling/1258-default-pod-topology-spread#beta-v120

Pending integration and conformance tests

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

DefaultPodTopologySpread graduated to Beta. The feature gate is enabled by default.

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

- [KEP]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements/keps/sig-scheduling/1258-default-pod-topology-spread
- [Usage]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/workloads/pods/pod-topology-spread-constraints/#cluster-level-default-constraints

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 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-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 16, 2020
@alculquicondor
Copy link
Member Author

/triage accepted

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on. and removed needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 16, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added 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 Oct 16, 2020
@alculquicondor
Copy link
Member Author

/assign @Huang-Wei

@alculquicondor
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@Huang-Wei
Copy link
Member

LGTM. Please fix the CI failures.

@alculquicondor alculquicondor force-pushed the enable-default-spreading branch 2 times, most recently from 19da692 to a1c75e1 Compare October 19, 2020 19:06
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added area/test sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Oct 19, 2020
@alculquicondor
Graduate DefaultPodTopologySpread to beta
87c8349 
And set to enabled by default

Change-Id: Ie4cc4758c52492924cb0663450f2747908cb5882
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 19, 2020
@Huang-Wei
Copy link
Member

Thanks @alculquicondor .

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 19, 2020
@alculquicondor
Copy link
Member Author

/assign @ahg-g

ahg-g
ahg-g reviewed Oct 20, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@ahg-g ahg-g left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

we should keep an eye on http://perf-dash.k8s.io/ to see how this will impact the scheduling latency.

pkg/scheduler/apis/config/v1beta1/defaults_test.go
@@ -390,38 +390,17 @@ func TestPluginArgsDefaults(t *testing.T) {
MaxSkew: 2,
},
},
// TODO(#94008): Make SystemDefaulting in v1beta2.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

and this becomes an invalid configuration (constraints without defaulting type set)?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Correct.

pkg/scheduler/framework/plugins/defaultpreemption/default_preemption_test.go
fwk, err := st.NewFramework(
registeredPlugins,
frameworkruntime.WithPodNominator(internalqueue.NewPodNominator()),
frameworkruntime.WithSnapshotSharedLister(snapshot),
frameworkruntime.WithInformerFactory(informerFactory),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why is this necessary now?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Because when default spreading is enabled, we require the informers for Services and so on.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok, and we were not using selectorspread in the tests (which would have required this).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/hold
I didn't stop to think about that. Let me check

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/hold cancel

There is a test for preemption when there is hard topology spreading, which now has constraints by default.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, the test that registers PodTopologySpread plugin now has a system default constraints, and it can pass only with a non-nil informerFactory::

kubernetes/pkg/scheduler/framework/plugins/podtopologyspread/plugin.go

Lines 96 to 99 in af1c893

if len(pl.defaultConstraints) != 0 {
if h.SharedInformerFactory() == nil {
return nil, fmt.Errorf("SharedInformerFactory is nil")
}

pkg/scheduler/apis/config/scheme/scheme_test.go
@@ -302,7 +298,7 @@ profiles:
{
Name: "PodTopologySpread",
Args: &config.PodTopologySpreadArgs{
DefaultingType: config.ListDefaulting,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

in retrospect, this looks strange, defaulting to listdefaulting without constraints.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

oh, or is that how we disable the default constraints?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Correct. And that's the default if the feature gate is disabled.

@ahg-g
Copy link
Member

ahg-g commented Oct 20, 2020

/hold

just so you respond to the comments.

@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 Oct 20, 2020
@alculquicondor
Copy link
Member Author

I also need an approval for pkg/features

/hold cancel

@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 Oct 20, 2020
@ahg-g
Copy link
Member

ahg-g commented Oct 20, 2020

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

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

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 approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. and removed do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. labels Oct 20, 2020
@alculquicondor
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 3fe372c into kubernetes:master Oct 20, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.20 milestone Oct 20, 2020
@alculquicondor alculquicondor mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2020
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Huang-Wei Huang-Wei Huang-Wei left review comments

@ahg-g ahg-g ahg-g left review comments

@brendandburns brendandburns Awaiting requested review from brendandburns

@wgliang wgliang Awaiting requested review from wgliang

Assignees

@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/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. 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. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. 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/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.20
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Graduate DefaultPodTopologySpread to Beta
4 participants
@alculquicondor @Huang-Wei @ahg-g @k8s-ci-robot