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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

pkg/kubelet/cloudresource: fallback to old addresses if sync loop fails #71727

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Feb 1, 2019
Merged

pkg/kubelet/cloudresource: fallback to old addresses if sync loop fails #71727

merged 3 commits into from Feb 1, 2019

Conversation

mikedanese
Copy link
Member

This does a bit more than the title.

  • remove unnecessary sleeping in syncmanager
  • change syncmanager to fallback to old addresses in the case that a single sync loop fails
  • a bit of cleanup

/kind bug
/king sig-node

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. 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-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. area/kubelet sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Dec 4, 2018
@mikedanese
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@mikedanese mikedanese added the priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. label Dec 5, 2018
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. label Dec 5, 2018
mikedanese
mikedanese commented Dec 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
pkg/kubelet/cloudresource/cloud_request_manager_test.go
func TestNodeAddressesRequest(t *testing.T) {
syncPeriod := 300 * time.Millisecond
maxRetry := 5
func TestNodeAddressesDelay(t *testing.T) {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This test is flaky on master. I'm wondering if we should remove the concurrency altogether.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sync.Cond is tricky to reason about so I strongly recommend having a good concurrent test.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, left as is and added a comment about sync.Cond.

@mikedanese
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

1 similar comment
@mikedanese
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

awly
awly reviewed Jan 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
pkg/kubelet/cloudresource/cloud_request_manager.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/kubelet/cloudresource/cloud_request_manager_test.go
func TestNodeAddressesRequest(t *testing.T) {
syncPeriod := 300 * time.Millisecond
maxRetry := 5
func TestNodeAddressesDelay(t *testing.T) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sync.Cond is tricky to reason about so I strongly recommend having a good concurrent test.

pkg/kubelet/cloudresource/cloud_request_manager_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@awly
Copy link
Contributor

awly commented Jan 29, 2019

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 29, 2019
@mikedanese
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@yujuhong
Copy link
Contributor

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mikedanese, yujuhong

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 the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 31, 2019
@fejta-bot
Copy link

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

5 similar comments
@fejta-bot
Copy link

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@mikedanese: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kops-aws bf99565 link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kops-aws

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.

@mikedanese mikedanese added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 1, 2019
@mikedanese
Copy link
Member Author

I thought we removed kops from release blockers.

@mikedanese mikedanese removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 1, 2019
@krzyzacy
Copy link
Member

krzyzacy commented Feb 1, 2019

/skip

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit ae2b176 into kubernetes:master Feb 1, 2019
tedyu
tedyu reviewed Feb 1, 2019
View reviewed changes
pkg/kubelet/cloudresource/cloud_request_manager.go
return
}

m.nodeAddressesErr = fmt.Errorf("failed to get node address from cloud provider: %v", err)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should m.nodeAddressesMonitor.Broadcast() be called in this case ?

If so, shouldn't m.nodeAddresses be set before returning ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If this line is reached, sync failed an no prior addresses were available.
This will cause all pending NodeAddresses calls to unblock and return this error.

@awly
Copy link
Contributor

awly commented Feb 2, 2019

@mikedanese I just realized that this could've been a simple sync.RWMutex

@mikedanese mikedanese deleted the fixcrm branch February 2, 2019 01:59
@mikedanese
Copy link
Member Author

@awly monitors aren't simple? :) feel free to send a PR.

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

@tedyu tedyu tedyu left review comments

@awly awly awly left review comments

@dchen1107 dchen1107 Awaiting requested review from dchen1107

@vishh vishh Awaiting requested review from vishh

Assignees

@justinsb justinsb

@awly awly

@yujuhong yujuhong

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/kubelet cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
8 participants
@mikedanese @awly @yujuhong @k8s-ci-robot @fejta-bot @krzyzacy @tedyu @justinsb