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
node: topologymanager: Improved multi-numa alignment in Topology Manager #112914
node: topologymanager: Improved multi-numa alignment in Topology Manager #112914
Conversation
Hi @PiotrProkop. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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. |
/assign @klueska |
This PR may require API review. If so, when the changes are ready, complete the pre-review checklist and request an API review. Status of requested reviews is tracked in the API Review project. |
c0a69c9
to
9df2b5f
Compare
/lgtm @PiotrProkop |
@fromanirh you're right I could just |
your call! I can review again, that's no bother. |
5a9394a
to
669fa12
Compare
@fromanirh PTAL |
Signed-off-by: PiotrProkop <pprokop@nvidia.com>
…ManagerOptions Signed-off-by: PiotrProkop <pprokop@nvidia.com>
…numa policy Signed-off-by: PiotrProkop <pprokop@nvidia.com>
669fa12
to
75bb437
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.
/lgtm
thanks for applying the cleanups! |
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.
@klueska @PiotrProkop thanks for the commented code and test cases.
this looks good to me.
/lgtm
/approve
@@ -519,6 +519,7 @@ func AddKubeletConfigFlags(mainfs *pflag.FlagSet, c *kubeletconfig.KubeletConfig | |||
fs.BoolVar(&c.ProtectKernelDefaults, "protect-kernel-defaults", c.ProtectKernelDefaults, "Default kubelet behaviour for kernel tuning. If set, kubelet errors if any of kernel tunables is different than kubelet defaults.") | |||
fs.StringVar(&c.ReservedSystemCPUs, "reserved-cpus", c.ReservedSystemCPUs, "A comma-separated list of CPUs or CPU ranges that are reserved for system and kubernetes usage. This specific list will supersede cpu counts in --system-reserved and --kube-reserved.") | |||
fs.StringVar(&c.TopologyManagerScope, "topology-manager-scope", c.TopologyManagerScope, "Scope to which topology hints applied. Topology Manager collects hints from Hint Providers and applies them to defined scope to ensure the pod admission. Possible values: 'container', 'pod'.") | |||
fs.Var(cliflag.NewMapStringStringNoSplit(&c.TopologyManagerPolicyOptions), "topology-manager-policy-options", "A set of key=value Topology Manager policy options to use, to fine tune their behaviour. If not supplied, keep the default behaviour.") |
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.
@liggitt I think its fine to have this flag as its the same practice we followed for cpu manager policy options and it was the approach that was litigated during the kep process for this feature so changing this now doesn't feel right to me and is not different from past precedent.
see: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/pull/3549/files#r980945432
if we get a future kep, i will take this advice into account so we can avoid more flag proliferation.
// alpha: v1.26 | ||
// | ||
// Allow the usage of options to fine-tune the topology manager policies. | ||
TopologyManagerPolicyOptions featuregate.Feature = "TopologyManagerPolicyOptions" |
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.
just noting this is the same pattern followed with CPUManagerPolicyOptions
nodeDir string | ||
} | ||
|
||
func NewNUMAInfo(topology []cadvisorapi.Node) (*NUMAInfo, error) { |
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.
thank you for the good set of unit tests!
/assign @liggitt |
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: derekwaynecarr, klueska, liggitt, PiotrProkop 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 |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
We propose an enhancement to the
TopologyManager
that allows it to favor sets of NUMA nodes with shorter distance between nodes when making admission decisions. The proposed enhancement is only applicable when comparing sets of NUMA nodes that are equal in size.Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: