-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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-2570: Support memory qos with cgroups v2 #2571
Conversation
/cc |
efc4d7a
to
221b648
Compare
c696fa8
to
454ed3c
Compare
acbf716
to
37d8e31
Compare
@bobbypage New updates have removed |
cc @kubernetes/sig-node-pr-reviews @kubernetes/sig-node-proposals @kubernetes/sig-node-feature-requests |
bb416be
to
6bc1cec
Compare
6bc1cec
to
7cf5042
Compare
/approve |
/assign @johnbelamaric |
Of course no problem, I will keep watching for that. Really appreciate for that :) |
/cc @ehashman |
- [x] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`) | ||
- Feature gate name: MemoryQoS | ||
- Components depending on the feature gate: kubelet | ||
- [x] Other |
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.
What other mechanism is used? It's not just the feature gate?
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.
It is typos, have updated.
with and without the feature, are necessary. At the very least, think about | ||
conversion tests if API types are being modified. | ||
--> | ||
Yes, some unit tests are exercised with the feature both enabled and disabled to verify proper behavior in both cases. |
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.
What about transitioning from enabled to disabled and vice-versa? Is there a way to test that changes to running workloads' cgroups happen the way you expect?
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.
Updated test details.
caf4e3a
to
ca09c08
Compare
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: derekwaynecarr, giuseppe, johnbelamaric, mrunalp, xiaoxubeii 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 |
Map container.requests.memory to memory.min on cgroup v2. See kubernetes/enhancements#2571
Map container.requests.memory to memory.min on cgroup v2 and update cm to support kubelet/systemd memory qos. See kubernetes/enhancements#2571 Signed-off-by: payall4u <payall4u@qq.com>
Map container.requests.memory to memory.min on cgroup v2 and update cm to support kubelet/systemd memory qos. See kubernetes/enhancements#2571 Signed-off-by: payall4u <payall4u@qq.com>
Map container.requests.memory to memory.min on cgroup v2 and update cm to support kubelet/systemd memory qos. See kubernetes/enhancements#2571 Signed-off-by: payall4u <payall4u@qq.com>
This proposal introduces memory qos with cgroups v2 for pod/container and qos/node level.