-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39k
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
Revert "Scheduler should use shared informer for pods" #46199
Revert "Scheduler should use shared informer for pods" #46199
Conversation
This reverts commit 479f01d.
@k8s-bot unit test this |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: gmarek, wojtek-t
Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:
You can indicate your approval by writing |
@wojtek-t: The following test(s) failed:
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. |
Automatic merge from submit-queue |
@deads2k @smarterclayton - so reverting this fixed the problem. It must be something wrong with this commit, though I don't know what exactly. |
@wojtek-t Thanks for the heads up and for targeting the revert at a commit. |
No problem. I was trying to understand the problem, but the commit looks reasonable and I didn't have time for reproducing adding logs, etc. to really debug it. But since this is just one commit, hopefully you will be able to do it. |
Yeah, hopefully this is obvious on the predicates test. |
and
|
So it looks like I am not properly excluding things from the cache. That would explain the predictability. |
This reverts commit 479f01d.
@smarterclayton @deads2k - I don't really have time to debug this today, so for now I'm reverting this commit. We should try to understand what does it change with respect to #46196 (assuming that this will fix the problem).