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

Avoid queueing workloads that don't match CQ namespaceSelector #301

Closed
Tracked by #222
ahg-g opened this issue Jul 18, 2022 · 6 comments · Fixed by #322
Closed
Tracked by #222

Avoid queueing workloads that don't match CQ namespaceSelector #301

ahg-g opened this issue Jul 18, 2022 · 6 comments · Fixed by #322
Assignees
Labels
kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release.

Comments

@ahg-g
Copy link
Contributor

ahg-g commented Jul 18, 2022

What happened:

Currently all workloads pointing to a CQ are queued irrespective whether or not they match the CQ's namespaceSelector. The selector is checked at scheduling time, which is quite late and causes two issues:

  1. wastes scheduling cycles
  2. more importantly, in strict fifo, such workloads will block other legitimate workloads from getting scheduled

What you expected to happen:

those workloads shouldn't be queued at all, they should stay in an inadmissible list until either CQ selector is changed or their namespace labels are updated to match the CQ.

The workload controller should take care of updating the workload controller with the reason for inadmissibility just like the case where the CQ is not existent.

@ahg-g ahg-g added the kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. label Jul 18, 2022
@kerthcet
Copy link
Contributor

kerthcet commented Aug 9, 2022

/assign

As part of release 0.2.0

@ahg-g
Copy link
Contributor Author

ahg-g commented Aug 9, 2022

Thanks @kerthcet , I actually have a PR in the works for this. Do you mind taking the last validation bit related to CQ instead?

@kerthcet
Copy link
Contributor

kerthcet commented Aug 9, 2022

Plz go ahead.

@alculquicondor
Copy link
Contributor

/priority important-soon

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. label Aug 11, 2022
@kerthcet
Copy link
Contributor

/unassign

@alculquicondor
Copy link
Contributor

/assign @ahg-g

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants