koordlet: add mid runtimehooks #1984
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1984 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 68.77% 68.82% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 422 422
Lines 39058 39072 +14
==========================================
+ Hits 26864 26891 +27
+ Misses 9870 9852 -18
- Partials 2324 2329 +5
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
j4ckstraw
force-pushed
the
add-mid-runtimehooks
branch
from
9bf8e29
to
9924040
Compare
|
I have no idea how to deal with the BatchResource featuregate, What do you think? @zwzhang0107 |
|
/rerun |
| return apiext.GetQoSClassByAttrs(labels, annotations) == apiext.QoSBE | ||
| func isPodQoSMatchedByAttr(labels map[string]string, annotations map[string]string) bool { | ||
| podQoS := apiext.GetQoSClassByAttrs(labels, annotations) | ||
| return podQoS == apiext.QoSBE || podQoS == apiext.QoSLS |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
which cgroup will Mid+LS pods use
/besteffort may be not appropriate
more things need to be clarify if using /burstable, such as the fairness of cpushares value between Prodand Mid
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function is just a filter which means it allow LS and BE.
I think mid+LS pods use /besteffort or /burstable should be restricted in validating webhook.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mid+BE in /besteffort seems reasonable, while Mid+LS should better use /burstable(but this needs some hack works since kubelet is not allowed yet)
I think now we can let koordlet supports Mid+BE first.
So here are the things we should fix:
- keep podQOSConditions still as apiext.QoSBE
- define independent GetContainerMidMilliCPURequest and Memory instead of using GetContainerBatchMilliCPURequest
Moreover, there are several QoS policies for BE, we need to clarify whether they should support Mid+BE and how to support, for example the evict order of pods. it will be better if we have some docs first.
Signed-off-by: j4ckstraw <j4ckstraw@foxmail.com> add test for util/extend_resource Signed-off-by: j4ckstraw <j4ckstraw@foxmail.com>
Signed-off-by: j4ckstraw <j4ckstraw@foxmail.com>
Signed-off-by: j4ckstraw <j4ckstraw@foxmail.com>
Signed-off-by: j4ckstraw <j4ckstraw@foxmail.com>
Signed-off-by: j4ckstraw <j4ckstraw@foxmail.com>
zwzhang0107
force-pushed
the
add-mid-runtimehooks
branch
from
9924040
to
6cc39a2
Compare
Ⅰ. Describe what this PR does
Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?
fix #1442
Ⅲ. Describe how to verify it
Ⅳ. Special notes for reviews
V. Checklist
make test