Add support for two more kubelet flags

[puneetguptanitj]

Added support for

• cpu-manager-policy and
• kube-reserved

[ojmhetar]

Curious, is the customer currently seeing kubelet being cpu starved or is this a preventative measure? Also, why not include a memory key as well?

[dlipovetsky]

Can we commit this to a branch, not master? I ask this selfishly, because this will conflict with my 1.11 work. No objections, though.

[puneetguptanitj]

@ojmhetar thanks for taking a look, right now we want to do just enough to allow cpu-manager-policy being set to static. Eventually these fixes will be removed when we move to 1.11 and have dynamic kubelet config support.

[puneetguptanitj]

@dlipovetsky thanks for taking a look, had a chat about this with @sarun87 as well. We were thinking of branching off after @ojmhetar fix for making VIP optional. It would be simpler as both these are required by the customer. As part of 1.11 changes would remove all the custom changes for kubelet config

[sarun87]

@dlipovetsky thanks for taking a look, had a chat about this with @sarun87 as well. We were thinking of branching off after @ojmhetar fix for making VIP optional. It would be simpler as both these are required by the customer. As part of 1.11 changes would remove all the custom changes for kubelet config

I think we should push any non 1.11 changes to master and then branch out to say k8s-1.10.4 and commit any 1.11 specific change to master. That would mean this change & optional vip changes that are in flight would need to land in master, then branch off and then 1.11 changes to be merged to master. @dlipovetsky what say?

[dlipovetsky]

If I understand correctly, this PR would be undone as part of the 1.11 changes (since in 1.11 nodeadm uses kubeadm to pass flags to kubelet). For that reason, I thought it would be easier to omit it from master. But it's not a big deal--go ahead and merge to master.