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

[KEP] Add resource policy plugin #594

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

KunWuLuan
Copy link
Contributor

/kind feature

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?


@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels May 25, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label May 25, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @KunWuLuan. 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. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 25, 2023
@KunWuLuan
Copy link
Contributor Author

releated to #475

@ffromani
Copy link
Contributor

/cc

@KunWuLuan
Copy link
Contributor Author

@denkensk @Huang-Wei Hi, if you have time, you can help to review the kep, thanks very much. 😆

@ffromani
Copy link
Contributor

ffromani commented Jun 6, 2023

/ok-to-test

It's a bit of a crazy time for me but I'll try to also add my (non-binding) review

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jun 6, 2023
@Huang-Wei
Copy link
Contributor

I will try to review it by this week.

@KunWuLuan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi, @Huang-Wei , This PR is ready for review. PTAL. Thanks for your time. : )

@KunWuLuan
Copy link
Contributor Author

There is a known issue, when the number of nodes in cluster is larger than 100, scheduler will not find all feasible nodes unless percentageOfNodesToScore is set to 100. This can make resource policy lose efficacy.

Copy link
Contributor

@ffromani ffromani left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

initial pass (sorry for the long delay)
at glance looks sensible, will be asking questions to fully grasp the proposal

kep/594-resourcepolicy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
kep/594-resourcepolicy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Sep 12, 2023

Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-scheduler-plugins canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 5062e58
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-scheduler-plugins/deploys/6603b72d49bb010008f983aa

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: KunWuLuan
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign ffromani 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:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@KunWuLuan
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ffromani @Huang-Wei Hi, do you have any other questions?

@ffromani
Copy link
Contributor

The main blocker atm is that the KEP template is not fully filled (e.g. PostFilter - do we need it? Do we have Graduation criterias? Do we need Production Readiness? [probably not] We probably need a few words in Feature enablement and rollback though)

From what I've read so far I have no major objections. About the architecture and the fitness of this plugin in the existing ecosystem I'd have to defer to someone more experience in the scheduling.

@KunWuLuan
Copy link
Contributor Author

The main blocker atm is that the KEP template is not fully filled (e.g. PostFilter - do we need it? Do we have Graduation criterias? Do we need Production Readiness? [probably not] We probably need a few words in Feature enablement and rollback though)

From what I've read so far I have no major objections. About the architecture and the fitness of this plugin in the existing ecosystem I'd have to defer to someone more experience in the scheduling.

Thanks! I will add these part.

@KunWuLuan KunWuLuan changed the title [proposal] add resource policy plugin [WIP] Add resource policy plugin Jan 16, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jan 16, 2024
@KunWuLuan
Copy link
Contributor Author

KunWuLuan commented Jan 19, 2024

Have updated the kep

@KunWuLuan KunWuLuan changed the title [WIP] Add resource policy plugin [KEP] Add resource policy plugin Jan 19, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jan 19, 2024
@KunWuLuan
Copy link
Contributor Author

for #475

@KunWuLuan
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ffromani @Huang-Wei Hi, please have a look when u have time. Thanks for your time. : )

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@KunWuLuan: 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-scheduler-plugins-integration-test-master 5062e58 link true /test pull-scheduler-plugins-integration-test-master
pull-scheduler-plugins-unit-test-master 5062e58 link true /test pull-scheduler-plugins-unit-test-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. 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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants