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
[Swap][Tests][KEP2400] Add swap serial stress tests, improve NodeConformance tests and adapt NoSwap behavior #123557
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[Swap][Tests][KEP2400] Add swap serial stress tests, improve NodeConformance tests and adapt NoSwap behavior #123557
Conversation
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: iholder101 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/test pull-kubernetes-node-swap-fedora |
PR is not ready to review yet. /uncc @dchen1107 @andrewsykim |
/cc when it is ready |
3b43518
to
dd4dda6
Compare
Signed-off-by: Itamar Holder <iholder@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Itamar Holder <iholder@redhat.com>
01107a6
to
fd26dac
Compare
/test pull-kubernetes-node-swap-conformance-fedora-serial |
@kannon92 could you please have another look now that kubernetes/test-infra#32276 is merged and the swap conformance label is removed? |
/test pull-kubernetes-node-swap-fedora-serial |
/test pull-kubernetes-node-swap-conformance-fedora-serial |
tests look good now /lgtm |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 69dd57e69a7ebb36963cc8ba100ca09ad1a10717
|
/triage accepted Let's get this into 1.31 as soon as it opens. |
@mrunalp Would you mind taking a look? |
/assign @mrunalp @SergeyKanzhelev @dchen1107 |
/retest |
@iholder101: The following tests failed, say
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. |
Hey @SergeyKanzhelev! We've introduced the new |
Is someone working on fixing this flakiness? Fixing flakes should have more priority than adding more tests or features. |
While I agree it's important, I think it's out-of-scope for this PR. This PR does not affect the tests that these lanes are running, but rather adds new serial stress tests to run under |
@pohly We are working on fixing flakyness in #sig-node-ci but bandwidth is limited. I don't think we can block all features in sig-node until we have a green CI. Fixing flakes is complicated because each test can have a different reason. For example, we have a flake in our eviction tests (for at least two years) and we spent at least a few months working on fixing it. It turns out that there was a limitation in our cadvisor stats code which was reporiting wrong processes. We debated about fixing at the cadvisor level or at the stats level. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
Fixes #120798
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR does the following:
UnlimitedSwap
and introducesNoSwap
behavior.To expand on (3), two serial tests are now added which validate the following scenarios:
"should be able over-commit the node memory"
- a pod is deployed which stresses memory. The test expects that once the pod uses all of the node's memory some of its memory would be swapped away."should be able to use more memory than memory limits"
- a pod with memory limits stresses memory. Eventually it goes beyond its memory limits and instead of being OOM killed some of its memory is swapped away keeping it alive.Special notes for your reviewer:
The original version of this PR was here: #120430
Due to unfortunate situations I had to be out of work for a while, therefore my PR was closed and continued here: #122175
Fortunately I was able to come back to work and therefore the PR is now continued here.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: