Skip to content
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

Standardize node affinity strategy logs #299

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 28, 2020

Conversation

damemi
Copy link
Contributor

@damemi damemi commented May 27, 2020

These helpers are called in the node affinity strategy:

if !nodeutil.PodFitsCurrentNode(pod, node) && nodeutil.PodFitsAnyNode(pod, nodes) {

However at their current loglevels this leads to confusing logs, because if a pod doesn't fit on the current node that message is always logged. But if it doesn't fit on any node, that may not be logged unless log level is >=2 (see

klog.V(2).Infof("Pod %v can possibly be scheduled on %v", pod.Name, node.Name)
). This leads to the confusing implication that eviction was intended, but not possible for some other reason.

Since these are used in the same check, they should have the same log levels for their relevant messages.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels May 27, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: damemi

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 27, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@ingvagabund ingvagabund left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not debating what's the right log level to use here. However, I agree to have the same log level here. Compared to other klog.V(?) lines log level 2 seems the most suitable here as log level 1 produces the key logs, log level 2 gives fills missing bits in log level 1 logs which are not so important. Log level 3 is used for strategy specific log which might be important for debugging.

@ingvagabund
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 28, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 54ea05d into kubernetes-sigs:master May 28, 2020
briend pushed a commit to briend/descheduler that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants