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

[RuntimeClassScheduling] Update runtime class admission plugin - Part2 #81072

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 24, 2019
Merged

[RuntimeClassScheduling] Update runtime class admission plugin - Part2 #81072

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 24, 2019

Conversation

draveness
Copy link
Contributor

@draveness draveness commented Aug 7, 2019 •
edited
Loading

/kind feature
/priority important-soon
/sig node
/assign @tallclair
/hold

What this PR does / why we need it:

This is the second part of RuntimeClassScheduling which update runtime class admission plugin.

Depends on #80825

To save your time, please review the commit after "feat: update runtime class admission plugin"

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Ref: #81016

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

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

- [KEP]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-node/runtime-class-scheduling.md

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. labels Aug 7, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Aug 7, 2019
@draveness draveness mentioned this pull request Aug 7, 2019
Closed
7 tasks
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the kind/api-change Categorizes issue or PR as related to adding, removing, or otherwise changing an API label Aug 7, 2019
@yastij
Copy link
Member

yastij commented Aug 7, 2019

/cc

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested a review from yastij August 7, 2019 21:53
@draveness draveness force-pushed the feature/runtime-class-scheduling-admission-plugin branch 2 times, most recently from 773c7f0 to b823da7 Compare August 13, 2019 14:27
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 13, 2019
@draveness draveness force-pushed the feature/runtime-class-scheduling-admission-plugin branch from b823da7 to 78cf4a9 Compare August 13, 2019 14:42
@draveness
Copy link
Contributor Author

/hold cancel

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 13, 2019
@fejta-bot
Copy link

This PR may require API review.

If so, when the changes are ready, complete the pre-review checklist and request an API review.

Status of requested reviews is tracked in the API Review project.

@draveness
Copy link
Contributor Author

draveness commented Aug 13, 2019 via email

tallclair
tallclair reviewed Aug 14, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@tallclair tallclair left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for working on this!

/cc @egernst @yastij

plugin/pkg/admission/runtimeclass/admission.go
newNodeSelector[key] = value
}

newTolerations := tolerations.MergeTolerations(pod.Spec.Tolerations, nodeScheduling.Tolerations)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Merge tolerations is incomplete, since it only keys off of key & effect, but it's valid to have different values and/or operators. I suggest using a custom method here, and then following up with a separate PR to fix MergeTolerations (if you're up for it).

On a related note, we need to decide what to do if there is a conflict (same {key, op, val, effect} and different TolerationSeconds). I think options are: use the pod value, return an error (reject the pod), or update the API validation to forbid setting TolerationSeconds on RuntimeClass (punt the problem)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The PodRestrictionTolerations use the same utility function, is it on purpose to override the toleration in these situations?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK, I think it makes sense to be consistent and use MergeTolerations here, but I think there is a bug with merge tolerations. Let's stick with this method, and I'll send a PR to fix it at the source.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed in #81732

@draveness draveness force-pushed the feature/runtime-class-scheduling-admission-plugin branch 5 times, most recently from a192a94 to dc72d45 Compare August 14, 2019 01:22
yastij
yastij reviewed Aug 14, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@yastij yastij left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I did a first pass, I'll take a look to the tests later

@draveness
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tallclair - for conflicts I'd prefer us rejecting the pod

I'd like to know how to define conflict tolerations, toleration with the same {key, op, val, effect} but different tolerationSeconds?

The PodRestrictionTolerations use the same utility function, is it on purpose to override the toleration in these situations and are we supposed to follow them?

@draveness draveness force-pushed the feature/runtime-class-scheduling-admission-plugin branch from dc72d45 to e48cba7 Compare August 19, 2019 17:52
tallclair
tallclair reviewed Aug 21, 2019
View reviewed changes
plugin/pkg/admission/runtimeclass/admission.go
newNodeSelector[key] = value
}

newTolerations := tolerations.MergeTolerations(pod.Spec.Tolerations, nodeScheduling.Tolerations)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK, I think it makes sense to be consistent and use MergeTolerations here, but I think there is a bug with merge tolerations. Let's stick with this method, and I'll send a PR to fix it at the source.

@draveness draveness force-pushed the feature/runtime-class-scheduling-admission-plugin branch from e48cba7 to 8e34776 Compare August 21, 2019 07:02
@draveness draveness force-pushed the feature/runtime-class-scheduling-admission-plugin branch from 8e34776 to 5732c63 Compare August 22, 2019 01:07
@draveness
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@draveness
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tallclair Are we supposed to wait for #81732 be merged into the master?

yastij
yastij reviewed Aug 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@yastij yastij left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
/hold

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 22, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 22, 2019
@tallclair
Copy link
Member

I don't think this needs to block on #81732
/hold cancel

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 23, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: draveness, tallclair

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 Aug 23, 2019
@tallclair
Copy link
Member

@draveness Thanks for working on this! This feature needs an E2E test - would you be interested in following up with a PR to add that?

@tallclair tallclair mentioned this pull request Aug 23, 2019
Merged
@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.

@draveness
Copy link
Contributor Author

@draveness Thanks for working on this! This feature needs an E2E test - would you be interested in following up with a PR to add that?

Yes, I'll send a follow-up PR soon.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit ce8cccb into kubernetes:master Aug 24, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.16 milestone Aug 24, 2019
@makocchi-git makocchi-git mentioned this pull request Oct 10, 2019
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@yastij yastij yastij left review comments

@tallclair tallclair tallclair left review comments

@dchen1107 dchen1107 Awaiting requested review from dchen1107

@egernst egernst Awaiting requested review from egernst

Assignees

@yastij yastij

@tallclair tallclair

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/api-change Categorizes issue or PR as related to adding, removing, or otherwise changing an API kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. 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
v1.16
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@draveness @yastij @fejta-bot @tallclair @k8s-ci-robot