fix: affinity priority #1548
Open
fix: affinity priority #1548
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
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: helen-frank 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/M
|
This PR has been inactive for 14 days. StaleBot will close this stale PR after 14 more days of inactivity. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
lifecycle/stale
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
Current Test Results: ❯ kubectl get nodeclaims
NAME TYPE CAPACITY ZONE NODE READY AGE
default-8wq87 c-8x-amd64-linux spot test-zone-d blissful-goldwasser-3014441860 True 67s
default-chvld c-4x-amd64-linux spot test-zone-b exciting-wescoff-4170611030 True 67s
default-kbr7n c-2x-amd64-linux spot test-zone-d vibrant-aryabhata-969189106 True 67s
❯ kubectl get pod -owide
NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE IP NODE NOMINATED NODE READINESS GATES
nginx1-67877d4f4d-nbmj7 1/1 Running 0 77s 10.244.1.0 vibrant-aryabhata-969189106 <none> <none>
nginx10-6685645984-sjftg 1/1 Running 0 76s 10.244.2.2 exciting-wescoff-4170611030 <none> <none>
nginx2-5f45bfcb5b-flrlw 1/1 Running 0 77s 10.244.2.0 exciting-wescoff-4170611030 <none> <none>
nginx3-6b5495bfff-xt7d9 1/1 Running 0 77s 10.244.2.1 exciting-wescoff-4170611030 <none> <none>
nginx4-7bdd687bb6-nzc8f 1/1 Running 0 77s 10.244.3.5 blissful-goldwasser-3014441860 <none> <none>
nginx5-6b5d886fc7-6m57l 1/1 Running 0 77s 10.244.3.0 blissful-goldwasser-3014441860 <none> <none>
nginx6-bd5d6b9fb-x6lkq 1/1 Running 0 77s 10.244.3.2 blissful-goldwasser-3014441860 <none> <none>
nginx7-5559545b9f-xs5sm 1/1 Running 0 77s 10.244.3.4 blissful-goldwasser-3014441860 <none> <none>
nginx8-66bb679c4-zndwz 1/1 Running 0 76s 10.244.3.1 blissful-goldwasser-3014441860 <none> <none>
nginx9-6c47b869dd-nfds6 1/1 Running 0 76s 10.244.3.3 blissful-goldwasser-3014441860 <none> <none> |
Signed-off-by: helen <helenfrank@protonmail.com>
github-actions
bot
removed
the
lifecycle/stale
helen-frank
force-pushed
the
fix-issue-1418
branch
from
edadb85
to
2581408
Compare
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 10632308037Details
💛 - Coveralls |
njtran
reviewed
Sep 12, 2024
| @@ -96,6 +97,15 @@ func byCPUAndMemoryDescending(pods []*v1.Pod) func(i int, j int) bool { | |||
| return true | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // anti-affinity pods should be sorted before normal pods | |||
| if affinityCmp := pod.PodAffinityCmp(lhsPod, rhsPod); affinityCmp != 0 { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems like the right move, but I'm not sure how this breaks down in our bin-packing algorithm. From what I understand, this just sorts pods with affinity + tsc before others with the same exact pod requests.
| return 0 | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // PodAntiAffinityCmp compares two pods based on their anti-affinity |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| // PodAntiAffinityCmp compares two pods based on their anti-affinity | |
| // PodAntiAffinityCmp compares two pods based on their the size of their anti-affinity constraints |
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.
Fixes #1418
Description
Priority scheduling of pods with anti-affinity or topologySpreadConstraints
How was this change tested?
I have 10 pending pods:
pod1: 1c1g requests, with anti-affinity; cannot be scheduled on the same node as pod10 and pod9.
pod2 ~ pod8: 1c1g requests; no anti-affinity is configured.
pod9: 1c1g requests, with anti-affinity; cannot be scheduled on the same node as pod1 and pod10.
pod10: 1c1g requests, with anti-affinity; cannot be scheduled on the same node as pod1 and pod9.
I want the resources of the three nodes to be evenly distributed, like:
node1: c7a.4xlarge, 8c16g (4Pod)
node2: c7a.xlarge, 4c8g (3Pod)
node3: c7a.xlarge, 4c8g (3Pod)
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.