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.

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

Improve quota controller performance by eliminating unneeded list calls #29134

Merged

Conversation

derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member

Previously, when syncing quota usage, we asked each registered Evaluator to determine the usage it knows to track associated with a GroupKind even if that particular GroupKind had no associated resources under quota.

This fix makes it that when we sync a quota that just had only Pod related compute resources, we do not also calculate the usage stats for things like ConfigMap, Secret, etc. per quota.

This should be a significant performance gain when running large numbers of Namespace's each with ResourceQuota that tracks a subset of resources.

/cc @deads2k @kubernetes/rh-cluster-infra

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot added size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. release-note-label-needed labels Jul 18, 2016
@derekwaynecarr derekwaynecarr assigned deads2k and unassigned bprashanth Jul 18, 2016
@derekwaynecarr derekwaynecarr added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. and removed release-note-label-needed release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. labels Jul 18, 2016
@derekwaynecarr derekwaynecarr changed the title Perf improvement: quota controller ignore group kinds not on the quota Improve quota controller performance by eliminating unnecessary queries Jul 18, 2016
@derekwaynecarr derekwaynecarr changed the title Improve quota controller performance by eliminating unnecessary queries Improve quota controller performance by eliminating unneeded list calls Jul 18, 2016
@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Jul 18, 2016

lgtm, unit test for this one ought to be pretty straightforward though

@derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member Author

@deads2k - now with tests that verify ;-)

@foxish
Copy link
Contributor

foxish commented Jul 18, 2016

Labelling this PR as size/S

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot added size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 18, 2016
@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented Jul 18, 2016

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit f2f65fe.

@deads2k deads2k added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 19, 2016
@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Jul 19, 2016

@derekwaynecarr let's get picks.

@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

@k8s-bot test this [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented Jul 19, 2016

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit f2f65fe.

@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants