search

kubernetes-sigs / descheduler

Descheduler for Kubernetes
https://sigs.k8s.io/descheduler
Apache License 2.0
4.36k stars 662 forks source link

Add handling for node eligibility #1205

Closed MarcPow closed 1 year ago

MarcPow commented 1 year ago

Proposing a potential fix for #1204.

Looking for feedback before adding unit tests, etc.

The current code assumes that a couple of beta feature flags around are currently enabled by default.

k8s-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign ingvagabund for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files: - **[OWNERS](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/descheduler/blob/master/OWNERS)** 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 commented 1 year ago

Hi @MarcPow. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
damemi commented 1 year ago

/ok-to-test thanks @MarcPow, I understand wanting to hold off on adding tests but it would be helpful to understand the change if you could add a couple test cases to demonstrate

k8s-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@MarcPow: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
pull-descheduler-unit-test-master-master 7ba113a914dfefa2f76eb08ef90c8638483c1e73 link true /test pull-descheduler-unit-test-master-master
pull-descheduler-verify-master 7ba113a914dfefa2f76eb08ef90c8638483c1e73 link true /test pull-descheduler-verify-master

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](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository. I understand the commands that are listed [here](https://go.k8s.io/bot-commands).
a7i commented 1 year ago

Thank you @MarcPow for this change, looks very thorough.

However, we are planning on introducing a NodeFitSpec that will give more flexibility as to what thing to check in order to identify eligible nodes.

Please see this comment on the Issue. What do you think?

a7i commented 1 year ago

/label tide/merge-method-squash

MarcPow commented 1 year ago

Thank you @MarcPow for this change, looks very thorough.

However, we are planning on introducing a NodeFitSpec that will give more flexibility as to what thing to check in order to identify eligible nodes.

Please see this comment on the Issue. What do you think?

I think we're all on the same page with respect to the need. The original proposal was a good one, but I think it was made independent of / prior to the changes that happened in the podTopologySpreadConstraints spec that added more controls here. At the point that those behaviors were added, I think the call on the descheduler is simply to behave just as the scheduler itself would when placing the pods in the first place. An independent, separate policy has thus become unnecessary.

MarcPow commented 1 year ago

Closing this PR, allowing this change to be carried forward by #1208