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

feature: Support multiple profiles #6545

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

daimaxiaxie
Copy link
Contributor

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

The cluster scheduler can use multiple profiles to perform different scheduling for different pods. However, the current Cluster Autoscaler only supports one profile, which will lead to inaccurate scale up and down.

Feature issue #6544

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

flag scheduler-config-file support the same configuration file as scheduler.

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:


@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. area/cluster-autoscaler labels Feb 20, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 20, 2024
@daimaxiaxie daimaxiaxie changed the title Support multiple profiles feature: Support multiple profiles Feb 20, 2024
@towca
Copy link
Collaborator

towca commented Apr 19, 2024

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. label Apr 19, 2024
@MaciekPytel
Copy link
Contributor

Overall this looks good to me, modulo the backward compatibility aspect of failing on unknown scheduler names. @alculquicondor I wonder if you would mind doing a quick sanity check on changes in schedulerbased.go to see if there are any potential problems with initializing framework that way from CA? I don't see anything, but you have much more expertise here.

Copy link
Member

@alculquicondor alculquicondor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall LGTM from scheduler perspective

@x13n
Copy link
Member

x13n commented May 7, 2024

/assign @MaciekPytel

Looks like you were reviewing this already, can you follow up? Is it ok to merge now?

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 20, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: daimaxiaxie
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from maciekpytel. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found 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 removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 20, 2024
@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

  • After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

  • Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
  • Close this PR with /close
  • Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Oct 18, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Nov 7, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

PR needs rebase.

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-sigs/prow repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/cluster-autoscaler cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants