KEP-4671: Add Workload API by macsko · Pull Request #134564 · kubernetes/kubernetes

macsko · 2025-10-13T09:04:20Z

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR adds a Workload API based on KEP-4671. Moreover, it adds a WorkloadReference to the Pod spec.

This PR doesn't contain the gang scheduling implementation that is posted in #134722.

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

Part of #134471
Fixes #134472
Fixes #134473
Fixes #134474
Fixes #134478

KEP: kubernetes/enhancements#4671

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Introduce scheduling.k8s.io/v1alpha1 Workload API to allow for expressing workload-level scheduling requirements and let kube-scheduler act on those.

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

- [KEP]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/4671-gang-scheduling

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-10-13T09:04:29Z

This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

Details

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.

dom4ha · 2025-10-31T14:03:34Z

It looks great!
@sanposhiho @helayoty do you see anything else from the scheduler POV?

thockin

Open question on impl: #134564 (review)

Otherwise this LGTM for API

thockin · 2025-10-31T15:59:03Z

+	metav1.TypeMeta `json:",inline"`
+	// Standard object's metadata.
+	//
+	// +optional


It's not common to say the name format here, even though we should. Please do.

thockin · 2025-10-31T16:40:31Z

+		}
+	}
+	if ref.Kind == "" {
+		allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("kind"), "must be specified"))


super nit-picky: the last arg to Required() is for rare cases where more context is needed. The error message will already say "Required value".

pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("labels").Key(key), pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: el = append(el, field.Required(namePath, "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath, "must specify a volume type")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("path"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("repository"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("targetPortal"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("iqn"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("secretRef"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("targetPortal"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("iqn"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("secretRef"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("secretRef", "name"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("targetWWNs"), "must specify either targetWWNs or wwids, but not both")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("lun"), "lun is required if targetWWNs is specified")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("pdName"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("volumeID"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("secretName"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("name"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("key"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("path"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("claimName"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("server"), "")) pkg/apis/core/validation/validation.go: allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("path"), ""))

Good point, changed to empty arg

thockin · 2025-10-31T16:40:51Z

+		}
+	}
+	if ref.Name == "" {
+		allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(fldPath.Child("name"), "must be specified"))


sanposhiho

@sanposhiho @helayoty do you see anything else from the scheduler POV?

Only one point from me: #134564 (comment)

alvaroaleman · 2025-11-02T01:59:52Z

+	// When set, it cannot be changed.
+	//
+	// +optional
+	ControllerRef *TypedLocalObjectReference


Isn't this redundant with metadata.OwnerRef with Controller: true?

alvaroaleman · 2025-11-02T02:15:23Z

+
+// PodGroupPolicy defines the scheduling configuration for a PodGroup.
+type PodGroupPolicy struct {
+	// Basic specifies that the pods in this group should be scheduled using


Don't we usually use a discriminator like a type field for enums, especially if there are members that have no settings? E.G. in deployment.spec.strategy there is a type

Its actually like that in the kep: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/363d884be5f231049767237926dfade5febdd4ca/keps/sig-scheduling/4671-gang-scheduling/README.md#L355

See #134564 (comment). The decision was to remove this field

thockin · 2025-11-03T20:04:12Z

/approve for API

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-11-03T20:04:31Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: erictune, macsko, thockin

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~api/OWNERS~~ [thockin]
~~cmd/kube-apiserver/OWNERS~~ [thockin]
~~pkg/api/OWNERS~~ [thockin]
~~pkg/apis/OWNERS~~ [thockin]
~~pkg/controlplane/OWNERS~~ [thockin]
~~pkg/features/OWNERS~~ [macsko,thockin]
~~pkg/generated/openapi/OWNERS~~ [thockin]
~~pkg/kubeapiserver/OWNERS~~ [thockin]
~~pkg/printers/OWNERS~~ [thockin]
~~pkg/registry/scheduling/OWNERS~~ [macsko,thockin]
~~staging/src/k8s.io/api/OWNERS~~ [thockin]
~~staging/src/k8s.io/client-go/OWNERS~~ [thockin]
~~staging/src/k8s.io/kubectl/OWNERS~~ [thockin]
~~test/compatibility_lifecycle/reference/OWNERS~~ [macsko,thockin]
~~test/e2e/scheduling/OWNERS~~ [macsko,thockin]
~~test/integration/etcd/OWNERS~~ [thockin]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

SergeyKanzhelev · 2025-11-03T23:28:25Z

lgtm from sig node. Looking forward for more feedback on this and follow ups

macsko · 2025-11-04T10:39:50Z

/hold
For gang scheduling implementation to be approved (#134722)

wojtek-t · 2025-11-04T19:46:59Z

The implementation part is formally approved too now:
#134722 (review)

@macsko - can you please rebase this PR so that we can merge it?

wojtek-t · 2025-11-06T09:10:27Z

Tagging and unholding based on approval from SIG scheduling TLs on the implementation PR:
#134722 (review)

/lgtm
/hold cancel

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-11-06T09:10:35Z

LGTM label has been added.

Details

Git tree hash: cbce30a3aa15b504deb8b5b319c9641309378cb8

dom4ha · 2025-11-06T09:40:02Z

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-11-06T09:40:10Z

LGTM label has been added.

Details

Git tree hash: d6f4b6c5437819f682404c26403942f4c1f97dcf

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-11-06T10:05:41Z

@macsko: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-apidiff-client-go	`54b6ab6`	link	false	`/test pull-kubernetes-apidiff-client-go`
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind-alpha-beta-features	`54b6ab6`	link	false	`/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind-alpha-beta-features`

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.

Details

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

github-project-automation Bot added this to SIG Apps and SIG CLI Oct 13, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. label Oct 13, 2025

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Needs Triage in SIG CLI Oct 13, 2025

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Needs Triage in SIG Apps Oct 13, 2025

github-project-automation Bot added this to SIG Scheduling Oct 13, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from ardaguclu and brianpursley October 13, 2025 09:04

macsko changed the title ~~WIP: Add Workload API~~ WIP: KEP-4671: Add Workload API Oct 13, 2025

macsko force-pushed the gang_scheduling branch from 1a15ac8 to 3709c86 Compare October 13, 2025 10:23

thockin reviewed Oct 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

sanposhiho suggested changes Nov 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

alvaroaleman reviewed Nov 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

ania-borowiec mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2025

KEP-4671: Implement Gang scheduling in kube-scheduler. Copy of PR #134722 #135138

Closed

dom4ha mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2025

KEP-4671: Add Workload API. Copy of PR #134564 #135140

Closed

macsko added 6 commits November 6, 2025 09:36

Add feature gates

b600652

api: Add WorkloadReference to Pod spec

9677ac4

api: Create Workload API

9639274

api: Workload API and Pod WorkloadReference generated files

078f462

kubectl: Add Workload to kubectl describe pod

02acdd6

e2e: Add tests for Workload API

54b6ab6

macsko mentioned this pull request Nov 6, 2025

KEP-4671: Remove Basic pod group policy from Workload API #135179

Closed

pacoxu mentioned this pull request Nov 11, 2025

Gang Scheduling Support in Kubernetes kubernetes/enhancements#4671

Open

24 tasks

dom4ha mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2025

Make native scheduling workload-aware #132192

Open

kangclzjc mentioned this pull request Dec 1, 2025

Add workload support ai-dynamo/grove#281

Closed

tosi3k mentioned this pull request Feb 13, 2026

Create Workload API v1alpha2 #136976

Merged

renovate Bot mentioned this pull request Feb 24, 2026

Update Python Dependency Updates for Next (next) (major) nautobot/nautobot#8000

Open

1 task

1fanwang mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2026

Make Deployment ReplicaSet-name tests robust to variable ComputeHash length #138623

Open

Conversation

macsko commented Oct 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 13, 2025

Uh oh!

dom4ha commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

thockin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sanposhiho left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

alvaroaleman Nov 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thockin commented Nov 3, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 3, 2025

Uh oh!

SergeyKanzhelev commented Nov 3, 2025

Uh oh!

macsko commented Nov 4, 2025

Uh oh!

wojtek-t commented Nov 4, 2025

Uh oh!

wojtek-t commented Nov 6, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 6, 2025

Uh oh!

dom4ha commented Nov 6, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 6, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 6, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

18 participants

macsko commented Oct 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

sanposhiho left a comment •

edited

Loading

alvaroaleman Nov 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading