-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 497
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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. |
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 Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the 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. |
releated to #475 |
595d47d
to
1246664
Compare
/cc |
@denkensk @Huang-Wei Hi, if you have time, you can help to review the kep, thanks very much. 😆 |
/ok-to-test It's a bit of a crazy time for me but I'll try to also add my (non-binding) review |
I will try to review it by this week. |
Hi, @Huang-Wei , This PR is ready for review. PTAL. Thanks for your time. : ) |
There is a known issue, when the number of nodes in cluster is larger than 100, scheduler will not find all feasible nodes unless |
There was a problem hiding this 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
1246664
to
52b1408
Compare
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-scheduler-plugins canceled.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: KunWuLuan 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 |
@ffromani @Huang-Wei Hi, do you have any other questions? |
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. |
52b1408
to
be8f5e8
Compare
Have updated the kep |
for #475 |
@ffromani @Huang-Wei Hi, please have a look when u have time. Thanks for your time. : ) |
Signed-off-by: KunWuLuan <kunwuluan@gmail.com>
4fcb6bd
to
5062e58
Compare
@KunWuLuan: The following tests failed, say
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. |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
/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?