This removes the DRAControlPlaneController feature gate, the fields controlled
by it (claim.spec.controller, claim.status.deallocationRequested,
claim.status.allocation.controller, class.spec.suitableNodes), the
PodSchedulingContext type, and all code related to the feature.
The feature gets removed because there is no path towards beta and GA and DRA
with "structured parameters" should be able to replace it.
This change updates the KDF "feature flag" to be per KMS provider
instead of global to the API server. This allows integration tests
that use distinct provider names to run in parallel.
Locally this change reduced the runtime of
test/integration/controlplane/transformation by 3.5 minutes.
Signed-off-by: Monis Khan <mok@microsoft.com>
add example of using CRI proxy
fix: Invalid function call
fix: Optimize getPodImagePullDuration
fix: Return error if the CRI Proxy is undefined
chore: add a document
This is not necessarily a problem, some code might use a timeout and expect it
to trigger. Therefore this should only be an info message, not a
warning. Long-term it might be useful to have an API where the caller decides
whether this gets logged.
The caller should use short messages and leave it to the user of those to
provide more context (no pun intended...). When logging, "canceling context" is
that context.
Before:
scheduler_perf.go:1431: FATAL ERROR: op 7: delete scheduled pods: client rate limiter Wait returned an error: rate: Wait(n=1) would exceed context deadline
contexthelper.go:69:
WARNING: the operation ran for the configured 2s
After:
scheduler_perf.go:1431: FATAL ERROR: op 7: delete scheduled pods: client rate limiter Wait returned an error: rate: Wait(n=1) would exceed context deadline
contexthelper.go:69:
INFO: canceling context: the operation ran for the configured 2s
As a quick fix for a flake, bceec5a3ff
introduced polling with wait.Poll in all callers of CheckDaemonStatus.
This commit reverts all callers to what they were before (CheckDaemonStatus +
ExpectNoError) and implements polling according to E2E best practices
(https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-testing/writing-good-e2e-tests.md#polling-and-timeouts):
- no logging while polling
- support for progress reporting while polling
- last but not least, produce an informative failure message in case of a
timeout, including a dump of the daemon set as YAML
The util for checking on daemonstatus was checking once if the Status of
the daemonset was reporting that all the desired Pods are scheduled and
ready.
However, the pattern used in the e2e test for this function was not
taking into consideration that the controller needs to propagate the Pod
status to the DeamonSet status, and was asserting on the condition only
once after waiting for all the Pods to be ready.
In order to avoid more churn code, change the CheckDaemonStatus
signature to the wait.Condition type and use it in a async poll loop on
the tests.
The test for checking container restarts in a Pod with restartable-init-1
and regular-1 is flaky. Right now, when we check if restartable-init-1 has
restarted, we see if it hasn’t written the "Started" log after regular-1 has
written its "Started" log.
But even though the startup sequence starts with restartable-init-1 and then
regular-1, there’s no guarantee they’ll finish starting up in that order.
Sometimes regular-1 finishes first and writes its "Started" log before restartable-init-1.
1. restartable-init-1 Starting
2. regular-1 Starting
3. regular-1 Started
4. restartable-init-1 Started
In this test, the startup order doesn’t really matter; all we need to check is
if restartable-init-1 restarted. So I changed the test to simply look for
more than one "Starting" log in restartable-init-1's logs.
There were other places that used the same helper function DoesntStartAfter,
so replaced those as well and deleted the helper function.
with systemd cgroup driver and cpumanager none policy.
This was originally planned to be a correctness check for
https://issues.k8s.io/125923, but it was difficult to reproduce the bug,
so it's now a regression test against it.
Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <pehunt@redhat.com>
The error was only generated if both checks (generated pods and ready pods)
failed. This looks like a logic error, failing if either of those isn't
matching expectations seems better.
