-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 459
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
USHIFT-3490: workload partitioning enhancement #1648
USHIFT-3490: workload partitioning enhancement #1648
Conversation
cd6622a
to
9005cf6
Compare
@eslutsky: This pull request references USHIFT-3490 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the feature to target the "4.17.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this: 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
9005cf6
to
8028421
Compare
8028421
to
f99e137
Compare
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.
Document could use a bit of formatting
59cb2a6
to
11b224a
Compare
```json | ||
{ | ||
"management": { | ||
"cpuset": "0,6,7" |
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 would be especially friendly if the user could specify the reserved CPUs in one file and it propagates to all the necessary config (on service start?).
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.
I agree that this sounds desirable. @eslutsky - can you comment please?
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.
as a principle we Dont change OS configuration from Microshift runtime, so all systemd/OS related configuration values has to be configured externally.
there are few duplicate files that needs to be managed , for example:
can we use symbolik links to point all this file to some central location ? WDYT? |
11b224a
to
a8c2d58
Compare
These files are all identical, but they probably exist as separate files because someone might want to have different CPU affinity for each of these things. If that's not something we want to keep, then this suggestion makes some sense. |
the problem is that symbolic links are not supported by the blueprint/osbuilder.. |
a8c2d58
to
5333340
Compare
5333340
to
85dbbbf
Compare
Signed-off-by: Evgeny Slutsky <eslutsky@redhat.com>
85dbbbf
to
c92853f
Compare
fixed |
/lgtm |
@eslutsky: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jerpeter1 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 |
No description provided.