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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Allow users to change thresholds for evicting pods in VPA #3962

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 29, 2021
Merged

Allow users to change thresholds for evicting pods in VPA #3962

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 29, 2021

Conversation

maksim-paskal
Copy link
Contributor

@maksim-paskal maksim-paskal commented Mar 21, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Allow users to change thresholds for evicting pods that use resources lower that recomended. Some pods needs to lower their request less than 12h.

This changes only allow users to change hardcoded values

New flags that will added with this PR

Name Default Usage
pod-update-threshold 0.1 Ignore updates that have priority lower than the value of this flag
in-recommendation-bounds-eviction-lifetime-threshold 12h Pods that live for at least that long can be evicted even if their request is within the [MinRecommended...MaxRecommended] range

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please follow instructions at https://git.k8s.io/community/CLA.md#the-contributor-license-agreement to sign the CLA.

It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.

  • If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
  • If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please sign in with your organization's credentials at https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to be authorized.
  • If you have done the above and are still having issues with the CLA being reported as unsigned, please log a ticket with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk: https://support.linuxfoundation.org/
  • Should you encounter any issues with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk, send a message to the backup e-mail support address at: [email protected]

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. label Mar 21, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @maksim-paskal!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/autoscaler 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/autoscaler has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Mar 21, 2021
@maksim-paskal
Copy link
Contributor Author

I signed it

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. and removed cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Mar 21, 2021
jbartosik
jbartosik reviewed Mar 25, 2021
View reviewed changes
vertical-pod-autoscaler/pkg/updater/priority/update_priority_calculator.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
vertical-pod-autoscaler/pkg/updater/priority/update_priority_calculator.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
vertical-pod-autoscaler/pkg/updater/priority/update_priority_calculator.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
vertical-pod-autoscaler/pkg/updater/priority/update_priority_calculator.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
vertical-pod-autoscaler/pkg/updater/priority/update_priority_calculator.go Outdated
// Pods that live for at least that long can be evicted even if their
// request is within the [MinRecommended...MaxRecommended] range.
podLifetimeUpdateThreshold = time.Hour * 12
podLifetimeUpdateThreshold = flag.Duration("priority-lifetime-threshold", time.Hour*12, "Pods that live for at least that long can be evicted even if their request is within the [MinRecommended...MaxRecommended] range")
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think current name of this flag could be more descriptive. What do you think about in-recommendation-bounds-eviction-lifetime-threshold?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think prefix in-recommendation is unnecessary

what do you think about this names with pod prefix?

Name Default Usage
pod-update-threshold 0.1 Ignore updates that have priority lower than the value of this flag
pod-eviction-lifetime-threshold 12h Pods that live for at least that long can be evicted even if their request is within the [MinRecommended...MaxRecommended] range

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think that the in-recommendatiotion-bounds part is necessary (we will evict younger pods, if they are out of the [MinRecommended...MaxRecommended] interval).

pod-eviction-lifetime-threshold sounds like we wouldn't evict younger pods no matter what to me

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok - finally we got this flags. Ok?

Name Default Usage
in-recommendation-update-threshold 0.1 Ignore updates that have priority lower than the value of this flag
in-recommendation-bounds-eviction-lifetime-threshold 12h Pods that live for at least that long can be evicted even if their request is within the [MinRecommended...MaxRecommended] range

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sounds good. Please update the PR

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

PR updated

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks like I didn't explain myself clearly enough, sorry about that. I think that we need the in-recommendation-bounds prefix for the flag that controls after how long VPA will evict pods which have requests in the \[MinRecommended...MaxRecommended`] interval.

We don't need the prefix for the flag which controls priority threshold, below which we will ignore updates.

So I'm suggesting

Name Default Usage
pod-update-threshold 0.1 Ignore updates that have priority lower than the value of this flag
in-recommendation-bounds-eviction-lifetime-threshold 12h Pods that live for at least that long can be evicted even if their request is within the [MinRecommended...MaxRecommended] range

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM - PR updated

vertical-pod-autoscaler/pkg/updater/priority/update_priority_calculator.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@maksim-paskal maksim-paskal requested a review from jbartosik March 25, 2021 15:07
@maksim-paskal maksim-paskal force-pushed the vpa-priority-settings branch 2 times, most recently from 5120808 to 4298564 Compare March 29, 2021 08:51
@maksim-paskal maksim-paskal force-pushed the vpa-priority-settings branch from 4298564 to 35930c7 Compare March 29, 2021 09:03
jbartosik
jbartosik approved these changes Mar 29, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@jbartosik jbartosik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
/approve

Thank you

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 29, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jbartosik, maksim-paskal

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 29, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 6dcda9d into kubernetes:master Mar 29, 2021
@maksim-paskal maksim-paskal deleted the vpa-priority-settings branch January 10, 2022 08:46
@stoyanr stoyanr mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2022
Merged
@demonCoder95 demonCoder95 mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2022
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jbartosik jbartosik jbartosik approved these changes

@krzysied krzysied Awaiting requested review from krzysied

Assignees

@jbartosik jbartosik

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@maksim-paskal @k8s-ci-robot @jbartosik