-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.5k
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
topologymanager: document topology manager policy options #37668
topologymanager: document topology manager policy options #37668
Conversation
Welcome @PiotrProkop! |
✅ Pull request preview available for checkingBuilt without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings. |
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.
Thanks @PiotrProkop
Please don't update content/en/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/kubelet.md
in this PR. That document is semi-manually autogenerated and we'll update it separately.
c8df1df
to
155766f
Compare
@sftim updated. |
You need to retarget this to the dev-1.26 branch. |
155766f
to
61dd008
Compare
61dd008
to
d4dd86c
Compare
👷 Deploy Preview for kubernetes-io-vnext-staging processing.
|
d4dd86c
to
c6a794d
Compare
LGTM about the technical content from sig-node perspective. |
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.
Noticed a few minor NITs but looks good overall from node-perspective.
content/en/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/feature-gates.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/feature-gates.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
c6a794d
to
13967ac
Compare
@@ -727,6 +730,15 @@ Each feature gate is designed for enabling/disabling a specific feature: | |||
- `TopologyManager`: Enable a mechanism to coordinate fine-grained hardware resource | |||
assignments for different components in Kubernetes. See | |||
[Control Topology Management Policies on a node](/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/topology-manager/). | |||
- `TopologyManagerPolicyAlphaOptions`: Allow fine-tuning of topology manager policies, | |||
experimental, Alpha-quality options. | |||
This feature gate guards *a group* of topology manager options whose quality level is alpha. |
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.
So the features behind this gate are designed to be a mystery, right?
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've contribute a near-identical feature for cpumanager). The intention here is AFACT not to hide the specific names nor to confuse the users. However we need to deal with the fact that the set of features guarded by these FGs are designed to rotate. We describe the FG in detail and their maturity level in the component-specific docs: https://github.com/kubernetes/website/blob/main/content/en/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/cpu-management-policies.md#static-policy-options
We can replicate the details here if this is less confusing for users.
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.
For now the only implemented policy option is prefer-closest-numa-nodes
and it is an alpha option. I think the list of options and its stage should be documented in topology-manager
specific docs not here. I will add a section which feature-gates
has to be enabled to test out this option
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.
section added, please let me know if it helps 😄
- `TopologyManagerPolicyBetaOptions`: Allow fine-tuning of topology manager policies, | ||
experimental, Beta-quality options. | ||
This feature gate guards *a group* of topology manager options whose quality level is alpha. | ||
This feature gate will never graduate to stable. |
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.
Same here. We don't want users to know what are behind the gate, and we want them to try them out?
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.
The specific options gated by this feature gate is described in the relevant documentation for the TopologyManager itself, e.g.
content/en/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/topology-manager.md
.
There is no precedent for listing out the specific options here (if that is what you are suggesting).
Signed-off-by: PiotrProkop <pprokop@nvidia.com>
13967ac
to
701ed98
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
technical content from sig-node perspective
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 1531e21dc41be72021e66eb7fd65adaa880bf504
|
Hi @PiotrProkop ! This PR needs a doc review by Mon Nov 28th to get this into the release. Please reach out to required SIGs to get their review. Thank you! |
@krol3 I've got |
/lgtm |
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.
We should add a list of alpha options and beta options into a new page within https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/node/
(and not https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/topology-manager/ which is a task page; task pages are the wrong place to put reference docs)
Although that change is really important, for me it doesn't block merging this PR.
@PiotrProkop / @klueska would you be willing to file a docs issue about adding that page, so we don't forget? Once the work is at least tracked, I think this is good to go.
Thanks |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: klueska, sftim 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 |
Enhancement link: kubernetes/enhancements#3545
Implementation link: kubernetes/kubernetes#112914