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

Check min size of node group and resource limits for set of nodes #5502

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 14, 2023

Conversation

yaroslava-serdiuk
Copy link
Contributor

@yaroslava-serdiuk yaroslava-serdiuk commented Feb 13, 2023

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

For parallel scale down we might scale down below min size of the node group because RemovableAt() verify each node individually. This PR add verification for set of nodes.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Feb 13, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added area/cluster-autoscaler size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 13, 2023
@yaroslava-serdiuk yaroslava-serdiuk force-pushed the min-size-fix branch 2 times, most recently from d660b80 to 1e8f072 Compare February 13, 2023 21:05
Copy link
Member

@x13n x13n left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the change! A couple of minor comments, otherwise lgtm.

cluster-autoscaler/core/scaledown/unneeded/nodes.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
nodeGroupSize := utils.GetNodeGroupSizeMap(context.CloudProvider)
for nodeName, v := range n.byName {
klog.V(2).Infof("%s was unneeded for %s", nodeName, ts.Sub(v.since).String())
nodeGroupSize := make(map[string]int)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

GetNodeGroupSizeMap already allocates a new map, I don't think we need another one.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right, missed that

@x13n
Copy link
Member

x13n commented Feb 14, 2023

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 14, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: x13n, yaroslava-serdiuk

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 Feb 14, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit b9bbed2 into kubernetes:master Feb 14, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/cluster-autoscaler cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. 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.

3 participants