CPU manager static policy #51180
CPU manager static policy #51180
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-github-robot
added
size/XXL
ConnorDoyle
force-pushed
the
cpu-manager-static-policy
branch
from
5ade72d to
63d1bec
Compare
|
/unassign @mtaufen @Random-Liu |
k8s-ci-robot
assigned derekwaynecarr and sjenning and unassigned mtaufen and Random-Liu
ConnorDoyle
force-pushed
the
cpu-manager-static-policy
branch
7 times, most recently
from
b0f05ab to
80b112c
Compare
k8s-github-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
|
@derekwaynecarr please add v1.8 milestone |
ConnorDoyle
force-pushed
the
cpu-manager-static-policy
branch
from
80b112c to
7721c97
Compare
k8s-github-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
|
/test pull-kubernetes-unit |
|
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-bazel |
|
/test pull-kubernetes-kubemark-e2e-gce |
| panic("[cpumanager] the static policy requires systemreserved.cpu + kubereserved.cpu to be greater than zero") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Take the ceiling of the reservation, since fractional CPUs cannot be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in the interest of future maintainers, please write more clearly the intent behind this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wrote a lot more comments here and especially in policy_static.go
ConnorDoyle
force-pushed
the
cpu-manager-static-policy
branch
from
bdca6a4 to
acf2d5b
Compare
|
Updated to fix crossbuild (is broken in master). /test pull-kubernetes-cross |
|
@derekwaynecarr ready for (final?) review, needs new LGTM following update. |
ConnorDoyle
force-pushed
the
cpu-manager-static-policy
branch
from
acf2d5b to
8857038
Compare
|
Updated (crossbuild fix merged, requiring another rebase) /test pull-kubernetes-cross |
|
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-bazel |
This reverts commit 8d28320.
ConnorDoyle
force-pushed
the
cpu-manager-static-policy
branch
from
8857038 to
5b5958e
Compare
|
Rebased again (feature gate conflicted with ExpandPersistentVolumes). /test pull-kubernetes-cross |
|
/test all |
|
@ConnorDoyle: The following test failed, say
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. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ConnorDoyle, derekwaynecarr, sjenning, smarterclayton Associated issue: 49186 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:
You can indicate your approval by writing |
|
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 51180, 51893) |
|
Created tracking issue "Requirements to promote CPU Manager from α to β" |
Automatic merge from submit-queue Added large topology tests for static policy in CPU Manager. **What this PR does / why we need it**: This PR adds a very large topology test case for the CPU Manager feature. Related to #51180. CC @ConnorDoyle
Automatic merge from submit-queue Node e2e tests for the CPU Manager. **What this PR does / why we need it**: - Adds node e2e tests for the CPU Manager implementation in #49186. **Special notes for your reviewer**: - Previous PR in this series: #51180 - Only `test/e2e_node/cpu_manager_test.go` must be reviewed as a part of this PR (i.e., the last commit). Rest of the comments belong in #51357 and #51180. - The tests have been on run on `n1-standard-n4` and `n1-standard-n2` instances on GCE. To run this node e2e test, use the following command: ```sh make test-e2e-node TEST_ARGS='--feature-gates=DynamicKubeletConfig=true' FOCUS="CPU Manager" SKIP="" PARALLELISM=1 ``` CC @ConnorDoyle @sjenning
Blocker for CPU manager #49186 (5 of 6)
nonepolicy #51357cc @derekwaynecarr @sjenning @flyingcougar @balajismaniam
Attempting to be fairly accurate with main authorship at least at a file level -- please let me know if anyone has a better idea on how to improve this.
For posterity, here are the Kubelet flags to run the static policy (assuming
/kube-reservedis a cgroup that exists for all required controllers)--feature-gates=CPUManager=true --cpu-manager-policy=static --cpu-manager-reconcile-period=5s --enforce-node-allocatable=pods,kube-reserved --kube-reserved-cgroup=/kube-reserved --kube-reserved=cpu=500mRelease note: