DRA for 1.31 #125488
Merged
DRA for 1.31 #125488
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note
|
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The 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-sigs/prow repository. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
needs-triage
This was referenced Jun 14, 2024
k8s-ci-robot
added
area/apiserver
area/code-generation
area/kubectl
kind/api-change
This is a complete revamp of the original API. Some of the key differences: - refocused on structured parameters and allocating devices - support for constraints across devices - support for allocating "all" or a fixed amount of similar devices in a single request - no class for ResourceClaims, instead individual device requests are associated with a mandatory DeviceClass For the sake of simplicity, optional basic types (ints, strings) where the null value is the default are represented as values in the API types. This makes Go code simpler because it doesn't have to check for nil (consumers) and values can be set directly (producers). The effect is that in protobuf, these fields always get encoded because `opt` only has an effect for pointers. The roundtrip test data for v1.29.0 and v1.30.0 changes because of the new "request" field. This is considered acceptable because the entire `claims` field in the pod spec is still alpha. The implementation is complete enough to bring up the apiserver. Adapting other components follows.
Publishing ResourceSlices now supports network-attached devices and the new v1alpha3 API. The logic for splitting up across different slices is missing.
This adds the ability to select specific requests inside a claim for a container. NodePrepareResources is always called, even if the claim is not used by any container. This could be useful for drivers where that call has some effect other than injecting CDI device IDs into containers. It also ensures that drivers can validate configs. The pod resource API can no longer report a class for each claim because there is no such 1:1 relationship anymore. Instead, that API reports claim, API devices (with driver/pool/device as ID) and CDI device IDs. The kubelet itself doesn't extract that information from the claim. Instead, it relies on drivers to report this information when the claim gets prepared. This isolates the kubelet from API changes. Because of a faulty E2E test, kubelet was told to contact the wrong driver for a claim. This was not visible in the kubelet log output. Now changes to the claim info cache are getting logged. While at it, naming of variables and some existing log output gets harmonized. Co-authored-by: Oksana Baranova <oksana.baranova@intel.com> Co-authored-by: Ed Bartosh <eduard.bartosh@intel.com>
The advantages of using a validation admission policy (VAP) are that no changes are needed in Kubernetes and that admins have full flexibility if and how they want to control which users are allowed to use "admin access" in their requests. The downside is that without admins taking actions, the feature is enabled out-of-the-box in a cluster. Documentation for DRA will have to make it very clear that something needs to be done in multi-tenant clusters. The test/e2e/testing-manifests/dra/admin-access-policy.yaml shows how to do this. The corresponding E2E tests ensures that it actually works as intended. For some reason, adding the namespace to the message expression leads to a type check errors, so it's currently commented out.
The resource claim controller is completely agnostic to the claim spec. It doesn't care about classes or devices, therefore it needs no changes in 1.31 besides the v1alpha2 -> v1alpha3 renaming from a previous commit.
The structured parameter allocation logic was written from scratch in staging/src/k8s.io/dynamic-resource-allocation/structured where it might be useful for out-of-tree components. Besides the new features (amount, admin access) and API it now supports backtracking when the initial device selection doesn't lead to a complete allocation of all claims. Co-authored-by: Ed Bartosh <eduard.bartosh@intel.com> Co-authored-by: John Belamaric <jbelamaric@google.com>
In the API, the effect of the feature gate is that alpha fields get dropped on
create. They get preserved during updates if already set. The
PodSchedulingContext registration is *not* restricted by the feature gate.
This enables deleting stale PodSchedulingContext objects after disabling
the feature gate.
The scheduler checks the new feature gate before setting up an informer for
PodSchedulingContext objects and when deciding whether it can schedule a
pod. If any claim depends on a control plane controller, the scheduler bails
out, leading to:
Status: Pending
...
Warning FailedScheduling 73s default-scheduler 0/1 nodes are available: resourceclaim depends on disabled DRAControlPlaneController feature. no new claims to deallocate, preemption: 0/1 nodes are available: 1 Preemption is not helpful for scheduling.
The rest of the changes prepare for testing the new feature separately from
"structured parameters". The goal is to have base "dra" jobs which just enable
and test those, then "classic-dra" jobs which add DRAControlPlaneController.
This fixes the message (node name and "cluster-scoped" were switched) and simplifies the VAP: - a single matchCondition short circuits completely unless they're a user we care about - variables to extract the userNodeName and objectNodeName once (using optionals to gracefully turn missing claims and fields into empty strings) - leaves very tiny concise validations Co-authored-by: Jordan Liggitt <liggitt@google.com>
Some of the E2E node tests were flaky. Their timeout apparently was chosen under the assumption that kubelet would retry immediately after a failed gRPC call, with a factor of 2 as safety margin. But according to kubernetes@0449cef, kubelet has a different, higher retry period of 90 seconds, which was exactly the test timeout. The test timeout has to be higher than that. As the tests don't use the gRPC call timeout anymore, it can be made private. While at it, the name and documentation gets updated.
Huang-Wei
reviewed
Jul 22, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
/approve
for scheduler changes.
PS: there was one nit for integration test coverage. For now DRA is using scheduler_perf tests for both perf and functionality tests. However, scheduler_perf is not included in a PR's presubmit-CI, so it makes sense to add some integration tests under test/integration/scheduler. Not a blocker though.
|
/test pull-kubernetes-node-e2e-crio-cgrpv2-dra Setup failed with a flake (? "Error while dialing: dial unix /var/run/crio/crio.sock: connect: no such file or directory").
It is enabled, and there is one test scenario ("SchedulingWithResourceClaimTemplateStructured") for the new API. More can and will be added once we start investigating performance a bit more. Right now, it's more about functionality. @klueska: would you do us the honor and LGTM together with lifting the hold? We have positive reviews and approval from (not collecting links, but they are there...):
Thanks everyone! |
|
Gladly. Thanks everyone! One step closer... /approve |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: ce1d7771db93f922ecda8bf61041a6be1c84de6d
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Huang-Wei, klueska, pohly, thockin 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
pohly
added a commit
to pohly/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2024
This behavior was useful for kubernetes#125488 but wasn't obvious when reading the documentation.
hungnguyen243
pushed a commit
to hungnguyen243/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 16, 2024
The manual deep comparison code is hard to maintain (would need to be updated in kubernetes#125488) and error prone. In fact, one test case failed when doing a full automatic comparison with cmp.Diff because it wasn't setting allMemory.
hungnguyen243
pushed a commit
to hungnguyen243/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 16, 2024
This behavior was useful for kubernetes#125488 but wasn't obvious when reading the documentation.
SoulPancake
pushed a commit
to SoulPancake/k8s
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2024
The manual deep comparison code is hard to maintain (would need to be updated in kubernetes#125488) and error prone. In fact, one test case failed when doing a full automatic comparison with cmp.Diff because it wasn't setting allMemory.
SoulPancake
pushed a commit
to SoulPancake/k8s
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2024
This behavior was useful for kubernetes#125488 but wasn't obvious when reading the documentation.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
This is an implementation of the revised API and features from kubernetes/enhancements#4709.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Related-to:
Fixes: #125665, #124041, #125210
Special notes for your reviewer:
Several of these changes where already proposed earlier in separate PRs and/or might get split out. Here's a list:
In this PR, please only review commits starting with "DRA: remove immediate allocation".
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: