Update pod resize test to accept new cpu.weight conversion. by bitoku · Pull Request #132791 · kubernetes/kubernetes

bitoku · 2025-07-07T15:50:22Z

What type of PR is this?

/kind failing-test

What this PR does / why we need it:

Because of the changes in conversion of cpu.weight in cgroupv2, the InPlacePodVerticalScaling tests no longer pass.

This change enables graceful migration from the old conversion to the new conversion, not to break the CI.

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

Conversion of cgroup v1 CPU shares to v2 CPU weight causes workloads to have low CPU priority #131216

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

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

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-07-07T15:50:32Z

Hi @bitoku. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

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.

haircommander · 2025-07-07T16:16:15Z

test/e2e/common/node/framework/cgroups/cgroups.go

 	if podOnCgroupv2 {
 		// TODO: This fomula should be a shared function.
-		return 1 + ((shares-2)*9999)/262142
+		// TODO: Remove the old conversion once container runtimes are updated.


can you add a link to the oci runtime changes/issues to track why we check both?

I added the description. let me know if anything unclear.

giuseppe

LGTM

giuseppe · 2025-07-08T09:32:03Z

There are other instances of this conversion in the code. Will they be addressed separately?

bitoku · 2025-07-08T09:34:55Z

@giuseppe I just didn't realize other instances. I'd like to include them in this PR. Can you point out for me?

giuseppe · 2025-07-08T09:42:02Z

@giuseppe I just didn't realize other instances. I'd like to include them in this PR. Can you point out for me?

these are the ones I see:

➜ git grep 262142
pkg/kubelet/cm/cgroup_manager_linux.go: return 1 + ((*cpuShares-2)*9999)/262142
pkg/kubelet/cm/cgroup_v2_manager_linux.go:      return uint64((((cpuShares - 2) * 9999) / 262142) + 1)
pkg/kubelet/cm/cgroup_v2_manager_linux.go:      return uint64((((cpuWeight - 1) * 262142) / 9999) + 2)
test/e2e/common/node/framework/cgroups/cgroups.go:              return 1 + ((shares-2)*9999)/262142
test/e2e_node/node_container_manager_test.go:   return 1 + ((shares-2)*9999)/262142

most of them are mechanical, except return uint64((((cpuWeight - 1) * 262142) / 9999) + 2) that needs the inverse function

SergeyKanzhelev

beyond the build directive this LGTM

SergeyKanzhelev

/lgtm
/approve

bitoku · 2025-09-11T17:06:49Z

@liggitt Can you PTAL as dep-approver?

liggitt · 2025-09-11T19:04:40Z

vendor/github.com/opencontainers/cgroups/config_linux.go


 	// Resources contains various cgroups settings to apply.
-	*Resources `json:"Resources,omitempty"`
+	*Resources


was it intentional to change the serialization upstream? this will now serialize explicit null values... does that impact us in any user-facing way?

I don't believe the kubelet serializes this cgroup object at all, it's kept as a go structure AFAIU and not read to or from anything. It's possible CRI implementations do, but this vendor doesn't affect that... we only use it in libctCgroupConfig and in every case it's used it's immediately passed to libctr.New() function

liggitt · 2025-09-11T19:48:09Z

/approve
for dep changes

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-09-11T19:48:29Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bitoku, giuseppe, liggitt, SergeyKanzhelev

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [liggitt]
~~test/e2e/common/OWNERS~~ [SergeyKanzhelev,liggitt]
~~vendor/OWNERS~~ [liggitt]

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

k8s-triage-robot · 2025-09-11T21:51:35Z

The Kubernetes project has merge-blocking tests that are currently too flaky to consistently pass.

This bot retests PRs for certain kubernetes repos according to the following rules:

The PR does have any do-not-merge/* labels
The PR does not have the needs-ok-to-test label
The PR is mergeable (does not have a needs-rebase label)
The PR is approved (has cncf-cla: yes, lgtm, approved labels)
The PR is failing tests required for merge

You can:

Review the full test history for this PR
Prevent this bot from retesting with /lgtm cancel or /hold
Help make our tests less flaky by following our Flaky Tests Guide

/retest

Adapted from kubernetes#132791 to release-1.33 Co-Authored-By: Ayato Tokubi <atokubi@redhat.com>

k8s-ci-robot added needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. area/dependency Issues or PRs related to dependency changes area/test sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. labels Jul 7, 2025

github-project-automation bot added this to SIG Node: code and documentation PRs and SIG Node CI/Test Board Jul 7, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. label Jul 7, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this to Triage in SIG Node CI/Test Board Jul 7, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this to Triage in SIG Node: code and documentation PRs Jul 7, 2025

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. label Jul 7, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from a team, dims and logicalhan July 7, 2025 15:50

bitoku force-pushed the cpu-weight branch from 05aa8b6 to a8d4cca Compare July 7, 2025 15:51

bitoku mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2025

Skip [FeatureGate:InPlacePodVerticalScaling] cri-o/cri-o#9322

Merged

haircommander reviewed Jul 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

bitoku force-pushed the cpu-weight branch 2 times, most recently from 9e7062f to b6d4eda Compare July 7, 2025 16:25

giuseppe approved these changes Jul 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

SergeyKanzhelev reviewed Sep 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

SergeyKanzhelev approved these changes Sep 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned SergeyKanzhelev Sep 11, 2025

liggitt reviewed Sep 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 11, 2025

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 1d80f35 into kubernetes:master Sep 11, 2025
14 checks passed

k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.35 milestone Sep 11, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this from Needs Approver to Done in SIG Node: code and documentation PRs Sep 11, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this from PRs - Needs Reviewer to Done in SIG Node CI/Test Board Sep 11, 2025

bitoku mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2025

Revert "Skip [FeatureGate:InPlacePodVerticalScaling]" cri-o/cri-o#9464

Merged

This was referenced Sep 24, 2025

DO NOT MERGE: k8s rebase experimental branch openshift/kubernetes#2148

Draft

WIP: do-not-merge: Rebase 1.34 openshift/kubernetes#2386

Closed

haircommander mentioned this pull request Sep 26, 2025

Migrate to systemd's cgroup v1 CPU shares to v2 CPU weight formula kubernetes/enhancements#5246

Closed

4 tasks

openshift-ci-robot mentioned this pull request Sep 30, 2025

DO NOT MERGE: k8s rebase experimental branch (2) openshift/kubernetes#2156

Draft

bitoku mentioned this pull request Sep 30, 2025

[release-1.34] Update pod resize test to accept new cpu.weight conversion. #134342

Merged

SergeyKanzhelev mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2025

container_spec_cpu_shares will use wrong cgroups v2 conversion formula for runc v1.3.2+ google/cadvisor#3737

Open

saschagrunert mentioned this pull request Oct 23, 2025

Switch to crun for cri-o kubernetes/test-infra#35758

Closed

natasha41575 mentioned this pull request Nov 7, 2025

[InPlacePodVerticalScaling] e2e tests fail when upgrading runc to 1.3.x+ #135214

Open

BenTheElder added a commit to BenTheElder/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2025

Update pod resize tests to accept new cpu.weight conversion

d6e11ec

Adapted from kubernetes#132791 to release-1.33 Co-Authored-By: Ayato Tokubi <atokubi@redhat.com>

BenTheElder added a commit to BenTheElder/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2025

Update pod resize tests to accept new cpu.weight conversion

aa0edf0

Adapted from kubernetes#132791 to release-1.33 Co-Authored-By: Ayato Tokubi <atokubi@redhat.com>

hakman mentioned this pull request Dec 17, 2025

[release 1.33] Update pod resize test to accept new cpu.weight conversion #135789

Merged

BenTheElder added a commit to BenTheElder/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2025

Update pod resize tests to accept new cpu.weight conversion

d57ca6a

Adapted from kubernetes#132791 to release-1.33 Co-Authored-By: Ayato Tokubi <atokubi@redhat.com>

hakman mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2025

[release 1.32] Update pod resize test to accept new cpu.weight conversion #135806

Closed

BenTheElder mentioned this pull request Dec 19, 2025

Cluster creation fails when using kindest/node:v1.35.0 on macOS arm64 kubernetes-sigs/kind#4085

Closed

bitoku mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2026

REQUEST: New membership for bitoku kubernetes/org#6089

Closed

11 tasks

liggitt mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2026

WIP: ensure cgroups conversion computation in e2e tests builds for all platforms #135739

Open

Conversation

bitoku commented Jul 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

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

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 7, 2025

Uh oh!

haircommander Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bitoku Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

giuseppe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

giuseppe commented Jul 8, 2025

Uh oh!

bitoku commented Jul 8, 2025

Uh oh!

giuseppe commented Jul 8, 2025

Uh oh!

SergeyKanzhelev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SergeyKanzhelev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bitoku commented Sep 11, 2025

Uh oh!

liggitt Sep 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

haircommander Sep 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

liggitt commented Sep 11, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 11, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-triage-robot commented Sep 11, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

10 participants

bitoku commented Jul 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading