fix: Cluster Autoscaler not scaling down nodes where Pods with hard topology spread constraints are scheduled #8164
Conversation
Signed-off-by: MenD32 <amit.mendelevitch@gmail.com>
|
@MenD32: The label(s) In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
|
Hi @MenD32. 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 Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the 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-sigs/prow repository. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
needs-ok-to-test
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/XS
…constraints Signed-off-by: MenD32 <amit.mendelevitch@gmail.com>
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/M
| @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ func (r *RemovalSimulator) findPlaceFor(removedNode string, pods []*apiv1.Pod, n | |||
| klog.Errorf("Simulating removal of %s/%s return error; %v", pod.Namespace, pod.Name, err) | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
| r.clusterSnapshot.RemoveNodeInfo(removedNode) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: Could you add a comment explaining that this is necessary for pod topology spread to work correctly?
|
Thanks for picking up the fix! Could you fill out the "Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?" section? This PR does change behavior, CA will now scale down in scenarios where it previously wouldn't. /ok-to-test |
k8s-ci-robot
added
ok-to-test
Signed-off-by: MenD32 <amit.mendelevitch@gmail.com>
MenD32
changed the title
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: MenD32, towca 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
What type of PR is this?
/kind fix
What this PR does / why we need it:
Nodes are mistakenly marked as unremovable with specific configurations of topology spread constraints
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #8093
Fixes #8162
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: