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

Extender bind should respect IsInterested #79804

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 16, 2019

Conversation

@yqwang-ms
Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 4, 2019

What type of PR is this?
/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:
If one extender want to manage its own extended resource exclusively, such as it want to always serve the binding request for its own extended resource xxx.com/gpu exclusively (because it also needs to set additional Pod annotations to help track resource placement when binding atomically).

However, currently, during initailization, the kube scheduler will just pick any extender which has bind verb, it may picks wrong extender, such as the one interests on xxx.com/fpga.
And then when executing a Pod binding, it find that the bind extender does not interest on xxx.com/gpu, so fall back to default binder, then even though the pod is bound, but the annotations are missed to be bound together.

This PR delays the bind extender selection when executing a Pod binding, so it will find the interested extender for each pod, instead of pre-find a global one to serve all cluster binding.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes # NO See issue above.

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Extender bind should respect IsInterested
@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 4, 2019

Hi @yqwang-ms. 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.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

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 k8s-ci-robot requested review from Huang-Wei and k82cn Jul 4, 2019

@yqwang-ms

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 12, 2019

/assign @wojtek-t

@yqwang-ms

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 12, 2019

/assign @k82cn
/assign @Huang-Wei

Could you please take a look at this small fix when you free? :)
Or could you please tell me what should I do next?
Thanks again!

@yqwang-ms

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 14, 2019

@Huang-Wei Could you please also take a look at this? Thanks!

@Huang-Wei

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 14, 2019

/ok-to-test

@yqwang-ms

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 15, 2019

Hi @Huang-Wei All tests are passed, ready to approve? :)

@Huang-Wei
Copy link
Member

left a comment

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm label Aug 15, 2019

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 15, 2019

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Huang-Wei, yqwang-ms

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 merged commit a56e86a into kubernetes:master Aug 16, 2019

22 of 23 checks passed

pull-kubernetes-kubemark-e2e-gce-big Job triggered.
Details
cla/linuxfoundation yqwang-ms authorized
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-build Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-test Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-conformance-image-test Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-cross Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-dependencies Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-csi-serial Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-device-plugin-gpu Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-iscsi Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-iscsi-serial Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-storage-slow Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-godeps Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-integration Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-local-e2e Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-node-e2e Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-node-e2e-containerd Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-typecheck Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-verify Job succeeded.
Details
pull-publishing-bot-validate Skipped.
tide In merge pool.
Details

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.16 milestone Aug 16, 2019

@tedyu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 16, 2019

I proposed similar change on May 23rd:

#78273

@tedyu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 16, 2019

My PR maintains extenderBinders so that non-bind extender isn't involved in the closure.

@Huang-Wei
Do you think I should submit a PR for this optimization ?

Cheers

@yqwang-ms

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 16, 2019

@tedyu Sorry for not found your PR previously.
From my view, at least the relaxed validation is still worth to be in master.

@tedyu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 16, 2019

@yqwang-ms
What do you think of the extenderBinders which narrows the extenders evaluated inside the closure ?

@yqwang-ms

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 16, 2019

@tedyu I think it is a minor optimization given in most clusters we only have very few extenders. Anyway you can benchmark it.
Overall, I think the extenderBinders optimization is better to have, and the relaxed validation is must have. :)

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.