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

add blkio support #70573

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@lovejoy
Copy link
Contributor

lovejoy commented Nov 2, 2018

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #27000 #70364

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:


@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 2, 2018

@lovejoy: Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 2, 2018

@lovejoy: This PR is not for the master branch but does not have the cherry-pick-approved label. Adding the do-not-merge/cherry-pick-not-approved label.

To approve the cherry-pick, please assign the patch release manager for the release branch by writing /assign @username in a comment when ready.

The list of patch release managers for each release can be found here.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 2, 2018

Hi @lovejoy. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 2, 2018

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lovejoy
To fully approve this pull request, please assign additional approvers.
We suggest the following additional approver: lavalamp

If they are not already assigned, you can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @lavalamp in a comment when ready.

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 requested review from derekwaynecarr and soltysh Nov 2, 2018
@lovejoy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

lovejoy commented Nov 2, 2018

This pr can be build but i didn't test it.
And our k8s version is not v1.10, this is just try to make our changes to the latest version. for somebody who may be interesting in this feature

@Avanpourm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

Avanpourm commented Nov 13, 2018

How do I limit rootfs, this pr doesn't work in the ideal way. @lovejoy

@lovejoy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

lovejoy commented Nov 19, 2018

@Avanpourm Yes, This pr is just for someone who is interesting is this. And may not be that fully considered.

@wenjun93

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

wenjun93 commented Nov 20, 2018

@lovejoy hi, the limit is in pod spec without device path, blkdev path is passed through flag which means it's static set for each pod with only one device?
Also, have you tested the code with your kubelet version? thanks.

@lovejoy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

lovejoy commented Nov 20, 2018

@wenjun93 Our pod read and write on a filesystem which is made by lvm ,and the lvm is on same physical disk. so we just need only one flag.

@wenjun93

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

wenjun93 commented Nov 21, 2018

@lovejoy got it, so there is no external storage supported for this limit.

@@ -69,6 +69,14 @@ func (m *kubeGenericRuntimeManager) generateLinuxContainerConfig(container *v1.C
lc.Resources.CpuQuota = cpuQuota
lc.Resources.CpuPeriod = cpuPeriod
}
storageReadBandwidthLimit := container.Resources.Limits.StorageWriteBandwidth().Value()

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@yufeiyu

yufeiyu Jan 9, 2019

Why using StorageWriteBandwidth() here?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@lovejoy

lovejoy Jan 9, 2019

Author Contributor

obviously,this is wrong

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.