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

Update cadvisor to v0.29.1 #60867

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 8, 2018

Conversation

@Random-Liu
Member

Random-Liu commented Mar 7, 2018

Update cadvisor to v0.29.1 to include a bug fix for containerd integration. google/cadvisor#1894

Release note:

none
@dashpole

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

dashpole commented Mar 7, 2018

/lgtm
/retest

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm label Mar 7, 2018

@dashpole

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

dashpole commented Mar 7, 2018

/priority critical-urgent

@Random-Liu

This comment has been minimized.

Member

Random-Liu commented Mar 7, 2018

/cc @thockin for approval of the Godep change. Thanks!

@dims

This comment has been minimized.

Member

dims commented Mar 7, 2018

@dashpole

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

dashpole commented Mar 7, 2018

It is worth noting that this only affects the containerd integration, so it is very low risk for the release.

@cblecker

/lgtm cancel
/hold

Removing status/approved-for-milestone until the release team reviews. We have to be careful during code freeze.

@Random-Liu: Can you please review the comments below, as well as explain what is the risk to containerd installs if this doesn't make the release? This doesn't appear to be a very risky change, but we need to understand the pros/cons

cc: @dchen1107 @derekwaynecarr @jdumars

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
{
"ImportPath": "k8s.io/kubernetes",
"GoVersion": "go1.9",
"GoVersion": "go1.10",

This comment has been minimized.

@cblecker

cblecker Mar 7, 2018

Member

This should not be changed.

This comment has been minimized.

@Random-Liu

Random-Liu Mar 7, 2018

Member

Sorry, forgot that I switched to golang 1.10. Will update.

This comment has been minimized.

@Random-Liu
@@ -462,47 +462,47 @@
},
{
"ImportPath": "github.com/containerd/containerd/api/services/containers/v1",
"Comment": "v1.0.0-beta.2-159-g27d450a0",
"Comment": "v1.0.0-beta.2-159-g27d450a",

This comment has been minimized.

@cblecker

cblecker Mar 7, 2018

Member

Please upgrade your git version.

This comment has been minimized.

@Random-Liu

Random-Liu Mar 7, 2018

Member

Will do.

This comment has been minimized.

@Random-Liu
@jdumars

This comment has been minimized.

Member

jdumars commented Mar 7, 2018

Yes, I'd love to know more risk context here. Thanks!

@Random-Liu

This comment has been minimized.

Member

Random-Liu commented Mar 7, 2018

Can you please review the comments below, as well as explain what is the risk to containerd installs if this doesn't make the release?

Why we need this change?

If this doesn't make the release, users will sometimes see partial container monitoring stats for Kubernetes+containerd integration, because of the race condition described in google/cadvisor#1894 (comment).

This doesn't appear to be a very risky change, but we need to understand the pros/cons

What is the risk?

  1. This change is only specific to containerd integration with cadvisor. The code path won't run for Docker and other container runtimes, so this won't be risky for other container runtimes.
  2. For containerd integration, this only added a fixed retry loop (5 times) around an existing logic to avoid the known race condition.
    a. The behavior in normal case is exactly the same with before.
    b. The behavior in error case is:
    • If one of the retries succeeds, it recovers to the original behavior.
    • If all retries fail, it fall back to the original error handling with ~1.5s delay. Since it is already the error case and should also be very rare, I don't think it make too much a difference.

@cblecker @jdumars Given so, I think this change is a low risky change which fixes a bug for users of Kubernetes+containerd. :)

Thanks for asking for the risk context!

@cblecker

Thanks for the information, @Random-Liu!

From a bumping godep perspective, this lgtm. From the side of inclusion in the 1.10 release, based on the information provided, I think this is a low-risk bug fix. I can't speak authoritatively for this area, however. If sig-node agrees, then I'd support inclusion in 1.10.

/approve

@cblecker

This comment has been minimized.

Member

cblecker commented Mar 8, 2018

/hold cancel
Withdrawing my hold :)

@jdumars

This comment has been minimized.

Member

jdumars commented Mar 8, 2018

I'm adding approved for milestone but someone else needs to LGTM this.

@k8s-merge-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

k8s-merge-robot commented Mar 8, 2018

[MILESTONENOTIFIER] Milestone Pull Request: Up-to-date for process

@Random-Liu @cblecker @dashpole

Pull Request Labels
  • sig/node: Pull Request will be escalated to these SIGs if needed.
  • priority/critical-urgent: Never automatically move pull request out of a release milestone; continually escalate to contributor and SIG through all available channels.
  • kind/bug: Fixes a bug discovered during the current release.
Help
@dims

This comment has been minimized.

Member

dims commented Mar 8, 2018

@jdumars from sig-node? it does LGTM 👍 to me

@dashpole

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

dashpole commented Mar 8, 2018

/lgtm
as well. Seems like we have consensus.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm label Mar 8, 2018

@cblecker

This comment has been minimized.

Member

cblecker commented Mar 8, 2018

based on the previous lgtm from @dashpole, the current lgtm from @dims, and the risk information provided:
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Mar 8, 2018

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cblecker, dashpole, Random-Liu

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

@jdumars

This comment has been minimized.

Member

jdumars commented Mar 8, 2018

Nice work everyone!

@k8s-merge-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

k8s-merge-robot commented Mar 8, 2018

/test all [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

@dashpole

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

dashpole commented Mar 8, 2018

/retest

@k8s-merge-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

k8s-merge-robot commented Mar 8, 2018

Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions here.

@k8s-merge-robot k8s-merge-robot merged commit bcfdb39 into kubernetes:master Mar 8, 2018

13 of 14 checks passed

Submit Queue Required Github CI test is not green: pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce
Details
cla/linuxfoundation Random-Liu authorized
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-build Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-test Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-cross Skipped
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-device-plugin-gpu Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gke Skipped
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kops-aws Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-integration Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-kubemark-e2e-gce Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-node-e2e Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-typecheck Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-verify Job succeeded.
Details

@Random-Liu Random-Liu deleted the Random-Liu:update-cadvisor branch Mar 12, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment