Extended pod-level resource isolation

[ConnorDoyle]

Feature Name

• One-line feature description (can be used as a release note): Extended pod-level resource isolation
• Primary contact (assignee): @ConnorDoyle
• Responsible SIGs:
• Design proposal link (community repo): Design document (in progress).
• Reviewer(s) - (for LGTM) recommend having 2+ reviewers (at least one from code-area OWNERS file) agreed to review. Reviewers from multiple companies preferred:
• Approver (likely from SIG/area to which feature belongs):
• Feature target (which target equals to which milestone):
  • Alpha release target (x.y)
  • Beta release target (x.y)
  • Stable release target (x.y)

############### Outdated template below #################

Description

Currently, the pod-level isolation strategy is fixed in Kubernetes. This feature is for Kubernetes to provide a way for cluster operators to extend the pod-level container management policy. This is a low-level feature that has been discussed as part of a solution to a broad number of resource isolation use cases including, but not limited to, device initialization and related container setup, and node-local cpu affinity policy.

Design document (in progress).

Related issues:

• Support for isolating opaque resources. kubernetes#28313
• Support for Hardware Accelerators #192
• Opaque integer resources #76

Progress Tracker

• Alpha
  • Write and maintain draft quality doc
    • During development keep a doc up-to-date about the desired experience of the feature and how someone can try the feature in its current state. Think of it as the README of your new feature and a skeleton for the docs to be written before the Kubernetes release. Paste link to Google Doc: design doc
  • Design Approval
    • Design Proposal. This goes under design-proposals. Doing a proposal as a PR allows line-by-line commenting from community, and creates the basis for later design documentation. Paste link to merged design proposal here: PROPOSAL-NUMBER
    • Decide which repo this feature's code will be checked into. Not everything needs to land in the core kubernetes repo. kubernetes/kubernetes
    • Initial API review (if API). Maybe same PR as design doc. [WIP] Pod and container-level resource isolator interface (plus isolator library, examples, tests) kubernetes#44870
      • Any code that changes an API (/pkg/apis/...)
      • cc @kubernetes/api
    • Identify shepherd (your SIG lead and/or kubernetes-pm@googlegroups.com will be able to help you). My Shepherd is: @vishh
      • A shepherd is an individual who will help acquaint you with the process of getting your feature into the repo, identify reviewers and provide feedback on the feature. They are not (necessarily) the code reviewer of the feature, or tech lead for the area.
      • The shepherd is not responsible for showing up to Kubernetes-PM meetings and/or communicating if the feature is on-track to make the release goals. That is still your responsibility.
    • Identify secondary/backup contact point. My Secondary Contact Point is: replace.me@replaceme.com (and/or GH Handle)
  • Write (code + tests + docs) then get them merged. ALL-PR-NUMBERS
    • Code needs to be disabled by default. Verified by code OWNERS
    • Minimal testing
    • Minimal docs
      • cc @kubernetes/docs on docs PR
      • cc @kubernetes/feature-reviewers on this issue to get approval before checking this off
      • New apis: Glossary Section Item in the docs repo: kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io
    • Update release notes
• Beta
  • Testing is sufficient for beta
  • User docs with tutorials
    - Updated walkthrough / tutorial in the docs repo: kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io
    - cc @kubernetes/docs on docs PR
    - cc @kubernetes/feature-reviewers on this issue to get approval before checking this off
  • Thorough API review
    • cc @kubernetes/api
• Stable
  • docs/proposals/foo.md moved to docs/design/foo.md
    - cc @kubernetes/feature-reviewers on this issue to get approval before checking this off
  • Soak, load testing
  • detailed user docs and examples
    • cc @kubernetes/docs
    • cc @kubernetes/feature-reviewers on this issue to get approval before checking this off

FEATURE_STATUS is used for feature tracking and to be updated by @kubernetes/feature-reviewers.
FEATURE_STATUS: IN_DEVELOPMENT

More advice:

Design

• Once you get LGTM from a @kubernetes/feature-reviewers member, you can check this checkbox, and the reviewer will apply the "design-complete" label.

Coding

• Use as many PRs as you need. Write tests in the same or different PRs, as is convenient for you.
• As each PR is merged, add a comment to this issue referencing the PRs. Code goes in the http://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes repository,
  and sometimes http://github.com/kubernetes/contrib, or other repos.
• When you are done with the code, apply the "code-complete" label.
• When the feature has user docs, please add a comment mentioning @kubernetes/feature-reviewers and they will
  check that the code matches the proposed feature and design, and that everything is done, and that there is adequate
  testing. They won't do detailed code review: that already happened when your PRs were reviewed.
  When that is done, you can check this box and the reviewer will apply the "code-complete" label.

Docs

• Write user docs and get them merged in.
• User docs go into http://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io.
• When the feature has user docs, please add a comment mentioning @kubernetes/docs.
• When you get LGTM, you can check this checkbox, and the reviewer will apply the "docs-complete" label.

[ConnorDoyle]

/assign

[idvoretskyi]

@ConnorDoyle I've updated the feature description to fit the new template. Please, fill the empty fields in the new template (their actual state was unclear).

[cmluciano]

Based on discussions, do we want to leave this open @ConnorDoyle ? Do we think this might be supplanted by subsequent proposals?

[vishh]

The takeaway from the resource management work group meetings was that an extended pod-level isolator isn't necessary as long as "static" CPU pinning, hugepages and extended support for hardware accelerators is in the roadmap. As a project, it is a bit too early to define an extension point around node level resource isolation that can be backwards compatible in the future.

…

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM, cmluciano ***@***.***> wrote: Based on discussions, do we want to leave this open @ConnorDoyle <https://github.com/ConnorDoyle> ? Do we think this might be supplanted by subsequent proposals? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#246 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGvIKI8lsSbHhTj4gxcBYlweXgoStPcOks5r2PbkgaJpZM4M04Cu> .

[ConnorDoyle]

Agree, we can re-open it later if it becomes necessary for other use cases people might have in the future.