-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40.1k
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.
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
Add score func for NodeResourcesFit plugin #101822
Add score func for NodeResourcesFit plugin #101822
Conversation
be1a67a
to
4c74db3
Compare
c04b6f2
to
f5368b2
Compare
I did |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just took a quick look at the API, will take a look at the full PR later today.
As for the error, you need to update the type in staging (https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/staging/src/k8s.io/kube-scheduler/config/v1beta1/types.go)
Note that we are working on v1beta2 (#99597), but for now you can update the v1beta1 type just so we make sure that the PR successfully passes the tests.
f5368b2
to
2f26149
Compare
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. |
5abbe00
to
37c4dc3
Compare
37c4dc3
to
9d72fdc
Compare
62c5f91
to
f5f5342
Compare
pkg/scheduler/framework/plugins/noderesources/requested_to_capacity_ratio.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
pkg/scheduler/framework/plugins/noderesources/resource_allocation.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
pkg/scheduler/framework/plugins/noderesources/resource_allocation.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
f5f5342
to
220220c
Compare
0e5bd06
to
db60f57
Compare
@liggitt @alculquicondor we address all the comments. We updated the conflict logic to apply to the new score plugin only. Please take a look, I really think this is the safe way to go, it is backward compatible and protects users from surprises. But if you still strongly disagree with this approach then we can change it. Let us know and based on that we will update the release notes on the description. |
@liggitt friendly ping. |
sorry for the delay, was digging into working default 1.21 configs to assure myself this wasn't breaking compatibility
The 1.21 error loading a config that tried to enable NodeResourcesFit as a score plugin was what I was wanting to be sure of. I do think the plugin conflict logic is hard to follow and makes it easier to break compatibility in the future by registering a conflict that used to be allowed. 1.21_default_fixed_no_pluginConfig.yaml.txt |
/approve /hold for scheduler lgtm and approve if needed @ahg-g I'd like to see these followups:
|
72599f9
to
deb14b9
Compare
Thanks Jordan for the detailed review and due diligence! I will create issues for the followup items. |
/release-note "A new score extension for NodeResourcesFit plugin that merges the functionality of NodeResourcesLeastAllocated,NodeResourcesMostAllocated,RequestedToCapacityRatio plugins, which are marked as deprecated as of v1beta2. In v1beta1, the three plugins can still be used in v1beta1 but not at the same time with the score extension of NodeResourcesFit" |
/hold until release note is updated. |
/hold cancel |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ahg-g, liggitt, yuzhiquan 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 |
Thanks for help and coauthor commit from @ahg-g , and detailed review comment by all of the reviewers, especially @liggitt and @alculquicondor . |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
A single scoring plugin for node resources
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Refs #98746
KEP kubernetes/enhancements#2458 kubernetes/enhancements#2461
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:
/sig scheduling
/triage accepted
/priority important-longterm
/assign @ahg-g