In-Place Update of Pod Resources

[vinaykul]

Enhancement Description

• One-line enhancement description (can be used as a release note):
  This issue tracks a list of KEP review conversations that need resolving before we GA the feature.
• Kubernetes Enhancement Proposal: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-node/1287-in-place-update-pod-resources
• Primary contact (assignee): @tallclair @Jeffwan @vinaykul
• Responsible SIGs: sig-node, sig-autoscaling
• Enhancement target (which target equals to which milestone):
  • Alpha release target (1.27)
  • Beta release target (past 1.33?)
  • Stable release target (past )
• Alpha(v1.27~v1.29)
  • KEP (k/enhancements) update PR(s):
    • 1.30 KEP-1287: Keep in-place pod resize KEP alpha/implementable for v1.30 #4433
    • v1.28 KEP-1287: Catch up KEP details to actual implementation #3944
    • KEP-1287: Keep in-place pod resize KEP alpha/implementable for v1.28 #4078
    • v1.17 initial KEP: in-place update of pod resources #686
  • Code (k/k) update PR(s):
    • v1.25 CRI: CRI changes to support in-place pod resize kubernetes#111645
    • v1.27
      • In-place Pod Vertical Scaling feature kubernetes#102884
      • Restructure resize policy naming and set default resize policy values kubernetes#116119
      • Fix nil pointer access panic in kubelet from uninitialized pod allocation checkpoint manager in standalone kubelet scenario kubernetes#116271
      • Initialize pod resource allocation checkpoint manager to noop kubernetes#116351
      • Rename ContainerStatus.ResourcesAllocated to ContainerStatus.AllocatedResources kubernetes#116450
      • Fix null pointer access in doPodResizeAction for kubeletonly mode kubernetes#116504
      • Add missing unit test for resource resize policy defaulting kubernetes#116684
      • Fix pod object update that may cause data race kubernetes#116702
      • Call function that validates resize policy for in-place pod resize feature kubernetes#116857
    • v1.29
      • Perf optimization: GetPodQOS() returns persisted value of PodStatus.QOSClass, if set. kubernetes#119665
      • Fail validation if container restart policy is 'Never' and resource resize restart policy isn't 'NotRequired' kubernetes#118768
      • Fix: do not assign an empty value to the resource (CPU or memory) if it's not defined in the container kubernetes#117615
      • Adding Windows support for InPlace Pod Vertical Scaling kubernetes#112599
      • fix inplace VPA stuck in InProgress when custom resources are specified kubernetes#120145
  • Docs (k/website) update PR(s):
    • In-place pod resize feature blog website#39846
    • Documentation for in-place pod resize feature website#39845
• Beta(v1.33)
  • KEP (k/enhancements) update PR(s): KEP-1287: InPlacePodVerticalScaling BETA update #4704
  • Code (k/k) update PR(s):
  • Docs (k/website) update PR(s):

Please to keep this description up to date. This will help the Enhancement Team track efficiently the evolution of the enhancement

1. Identify CRI changes needed for UpdateContainerResources API, define response message for UpdateContainerResources

   • Extend UpdateContainerResources API to return info such as ‘not supported’, ‘not enough memory’, ‘successful’, ‘pending page evictions’ etc.
   • Define expected behavior for runtime when UpdateContainerResources is invoked. Define timeout duration of the CRI call.
     • Resolution: Separate KEP for CRI changes.
       • Discussed draft CRI changes with SIG-Node on Oct 22, and we agreed to do this as an incremental change outside the scope of this KEP, in a new mini-KEP. It does not block implementation of this KEP.

2. Define behavior when multiple containers are being resized, and UpdateContainerResources fails for one or more containers.

   • One Possible solution:
     • Do not update Status.Resources.Limits if UpdateContainerResources API fails, and keep retrying until it succeeds.

3. Check with API reviewers if we can keep maps instead list of named sub-objects for ResizePolicy.

   • After discussion with @liggitt , we are going to use list of named subobjects for extensibility.

4. Can we find a more intuitive name for ResizePolicy?

5. Can we use ResourceVersion to figure out the ordering of Pod resize requests?

6. Do we need to add back the ‘RestartPod’ resize policy? Is there a strong use-case for it?

   • Resolution: No.
     • Discussed with SIG-Node on Oct 15th, not adding RestartPod policy for simplicity, will revisit if we encounter problems.

---

Alpha Feature Code Issues:
These are Items and issues discovered during code review that need further discussion and need to be addressed before Beta.

1. Can we figure out GetPodQOS differently once it is determined on pod create? See In-place Pod Vertical Scaling feature kubernetes#102884 (comment)
   • Fixed by Perf optimization: GetPodQOS() returns persisted value of PodStatus.QOSClass, if set. kubernetes#119665
2. How do we deal with a pod that requests 1m/1m cpu requests/limits. See In-place Pod Vertical Scaling feature kubernetes#102884 (comment)
3. Add internal representation of ContainerStatus.Resources in kubeContainer. Convert it to ContainerStatus.Resources in kubelet_pods generate functions. See In-place Pod Vertical Scaling feature kubernetes#102884 (comment) and In-place Pod Vertical Scaling feature kubernetes#102884 (comment) and In-place Pod Vertical Scaling feature kubernetes#102884 (comment)
4. Can we get rid of resize mutex? Is there a better way to handle resize retries? See In-place Pod Vertical Scaling feature kubernetes#102884 (comment)
5. Can we recover from resize checkpoint store failures? See In-place Pod Vertical Scaling feature kubernetes#102884 (comment)
6. CRI clarification for ContainerStatus.Resources and how to handle runtimes that don't support it. See In-place Pod Vertical Scaling feature kubernetes#102884 (comment)
7. Add real values to dockershim test for ContainerStatus.Resources In-place Pod Vertical Scaling feature kubernetes#102884 (comment)
   • Resolution: Not required due to dockershim deprecation.
8. Change PodStatus.Resources from v1.ResourceRequirements to *v1.ResourceRequirements
   • Resolution: Fixed
9. Address all places in the code that has 'TODO(vinaykul)'
10. Current implementation does not work with node toploogy manager enabled. This limitation is not capturedi in the KEP. Add this to the release documentation for alpha, we will address this in beta. See In-place Pod Vertical Scaling feature kubernetes#102884 (comment)

[vinaykul]

/assign @vinaykul

[jeremyrickard]

👋 Hey there @vinaykul. I'm a shadow on the 1.17 Release Team, working on Enhancements. We're tracking issues for the 1.17 release and I wanted to reach out and ask we should track this (or more specifically I guess the In-Place Update of Pod Resources feature) for 1.17?

The current release schedule is:

Monday, September 23 - Release Cycle Begins
Tuesday, October 15, EOD PST - Enhancements Freeze
Thursday, November 14, EOD PST - Code Freeze
Tuesday, November 22 - Docs must be completed and reviewed
Monday, December 9 - Kubernetes 1.17.0 Released

We're only 5 days away from the Enhancements Freeze, so if you intend to graduate this capability in the 1.17 release, here are the requirements that you'll need to satisfy:

• KEP must be merged in implementable state
• KEP must define graduation criteria
• KEP must have a test plan defined

Thanks @vinaykul

[vinaykul]

• KEP must be merged in implementable state
• KEP must define graduation criteria
• KEP must have a test plan defined

Hi @jeremyrickard I'll do my best to get this KEP to implementable state by next Tuesday, but it looks like a stretch at this point - the major item is to complete API review with @thockin , and that depends on his availability.

The actual code changes are not that big. Nevertheless, the safe option would be to track this for 1.18.0 release, I'll update you by next Monday.

CC: @dashpole @derekwaynecarr @dchen1107

[vinaykul]

@jeremyrickard @mrbobbytables This KEP will take some more discussion - key thing is API review. It does not look like @thockin or another API reviewer is available soon. Could we please track this KEP for v1.18?
Thanks,

[jeremyrickard]

/milestone v1.18

[vinaykul]

@PatrickLang Here's a first stab at the proposed CRI change to allow UpdateContainerResources to work with Windows. Please take a look.. let's discuss in tomorrow's sig meeting

root@skibum:~/km16/staging/src/k8s.io/cri-api# git diff --cached .
diff --git a/staging/src/k8s.io/cri-api/pkg/apis/runtime/v1alpha2/api.proto b/staging/src/k8s.io/cri-api/pkg/apis/runtime/v1alpha2/api.proto
index 0290d0f..b05bb56 100644
--- a/staging/src/k8s.io/cri-api/pkg/apis/runtime/v1alpha2/api.proto
+++ b/staging/src/k8s.io/cri-api/pkg/apis/runtime/v1alpha2/api.proto
@@ -924,14 +924,33 @@ message ContainerStatusResponse {
     map<string, string> info = 2;
 }
 
+// ContainerResources holds the fields representing a container's resource limits
+message ContainerResources {
+    // Resource configuration specific to Linux container.
+    LinuxContainerResources linux = 1;
+    // Resource configuration specific to Windows container.
+    WindowsContainerResources windows = 2;
+}
+
 message UpdateContainerResourcesRequest {
     // ID of the container to update.
     string container_id = 1;
-    // Resource configuration specific to Linux containers.
+    // Resource configuration specific to Linux container.
     LinuxContainerResources linux = 2;
+    // Resource configuration specific to Windows container.
+    WindowsContainerResources windows = 3;
 }
 
-message UpdateContainerResourcesResponse {}
+message UpdateContainerResourcesResponse {
+    // ID of the container that was updated.
+    string container_id = 1;
+    // Resource configuration currently applied to the Linux container.
+    LinuxContainerResources linux = 2;
+    // Resource configuration currently applied to the Windows container.
+    WindowsContainerResources windows = 3;
+    // Error message if UpdateContainerResources fails in the runtime.
+    string error_message = 4;
+}
 
 message ExecSyncRequest {
     // ID of the container.
diff --git a/staging/src/k8s.io/cri-api/pkg/apis/services.go b/staging/src/k8s.io/cri-api/pkg/apis/services.go
index 9a22ecb..9f1d893 100644
--- a/staging/src/k8s.io/cri-api/pkg/apis/services.go
+++ b/staging/src/k8s.io/cri-api/pkg/apis/services.go
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ type ContainerManager interface {
        // ContainerStatus returns the status of the container.
        ContainerStatus(containerID string) (*runtimeapi.ContainerStatus, error)
        // UpdateContainerResources updates the cgroup resources for the container.
-       UpdateContainerResources(containerID string, resources *runtimeapi.LinuxContainerResources) error
+       UpdateContainerResources(containerID string, resources *runtimeapi.ContainerResources) error
        // ExecSync executes a command in the container, and returns the stdout output.
        // If command exits with a non-zero exit code, an error is returned.
        ExecSync(containerID string, cmd []string, timeout time.Duration) (stdout []byte, stderr []byte, err error)

[dashpole]

@vinaykul It looks like since the above PR was merged, this was removed from the API review queue. I believe you need to open a new PR that moves the state to implementable, and then add the API-review label to get it back in the queue and get a reviewer.

Edit: you should also include any other changes (e.g. windows CRI changes) required to move the feature to implementable in the PR as well.

[vinaykul]

@vinaykul It looks like since the above PR was merged, this was removed from the API review queue. I believe you need to open a new PR that moves the state to implementable, and then add the API-review label to get it back in the queue and get a reviewer.

Edit: you should also include any other changes (e.g. windows CRI changes) required to move the feature to implementable in the PR as well.

@dashpole Thanks!

I've started a provisional mini-KEP per our discussion last week for the CRI changes (Dawn mentioned last week that we should take that up separately). imho the CRI changes does not block the implementation of this KEP, as it is between Kubelet and runtime, and user is not affected by it.

In a second commit to the same PR, I've addressed another key issue (update api failure handling), and requested change to move primary KEP to implementable.

With this, everything is in one place, and we can use it for API review.

[palnabarun]

Hey there @vinaykul -- 1.18 Enhancements shadow here. I wanted to check in and see if you think this Enhancement will be graduating to alpha in 1.18?

The current release schedule is:

• Monday, January 6th - Release Cycle Begins
• Tuesday, January 28th EOD PST - Enhancements Freeze
• Thursday, March 5th, EOD PST - Code Freeze
• Monday, March 16th - Docs must be completed and reviewed
• Tuesday, March 24th - Kubernetes 1.18.0 Released

To be included in the release,

1. The KEP PR must be merged
2. The KEP must be in an implementable state
3. The KEP must have test plans and graduation criteria.

If you would like to include this enhancement, once coding begins please list all relevant k/k PRs in this issue so they can be tracked properly. 👍

We'll be tracking enhancements here: http://bit.ly/k8s-1-18-enhancements

Thanks! :)

[vinaykul]

Hey there @vinaykul -- 1.18 Enhancements shadow here. I wanted to check in and see if you think this Enhancement will be graduating to alpha in 1.18?

The current release schedule is:

• Monday, January 6th - Release Cycle Begins
• Tuesday, January 28th EOD PST - Enhancements Freeze
• Thursday, March 5th, EOD PST - Code Freeze
• Monday, March 16th - Docs must be completed and reviewed
• Tuesday, March 24th - Kubernetes 1.18.0 Released

To be included in the release,

1. The KEP PR must be merged
2. The KEP must be in an implementable state
3. The KEP must have test plans and graduation criteria.

If you would like to include this enhancement, once coding begins please list all relevant k/k PRs in this issue so they can be tracked properly. 👍

We'll be tracking enhancements here: http://bit.ly/k8s-1-18-enhancements

Thanks! :)

@palnabarun Yes, I'm planning to work towards alpha code targets for this feature in 1.18. I've updated the KEP adding test plan and graduation criteria sections that I will be reviewing with SIG-Node this week and hope to get it implementable before Jan 28. I'll update this thread if anything changes.

[palnabarun]

Thank you @vinaykul for the updates. :)

[palnabarun]

/stage alpha

[palnabarun]

/milestone v1.18

[tallclair]

Blog placeholder: kubernetes/website#48576

[tjons]

Hey again @tallclair 👋 v1.32 Enhancements team here,

Just checking in as we approach code freeze at 02:00 UTC Friday 8th November 2024 / 19:00 PDT Thursday 7th November 2024 .

Here's where this enhancement currently stands:

• All PRs to the Kubernetes repo that are related to your enhancement are linked in the above issue description (for tracking purposes).
• All PR/s are ready to be merged (they have approved and lgtm labels applied) by the code freeze deadline. This includes tests.

For this enhancement, it looks like the following PRs are open and need to be merged before code freeze (and we need to update the Issue description to include all the related PRs of this KEP):

• [FG:InPlacePodVerticalScaling] Handle systemd cgroup driver by using libcontainer for updating pod cgroup values kubernetes#124216
• [FG:InPlacePodVerticalScaling] kubelet: Add VPA start, finished, and failure events, while optimizing vpa errors kubernetes#127479
• [FG:InPlacePodVerticalScaling] Add UpdatePodSandboxResources CRI method kubernetes#128123
• Updated version skew strategy for InPlacePodVerticalScaling kubernetes#128186
• [FG:InPlacePodVerticalScaling] Introduce /resize subresource to request pod resource resizing kubernetes#128266
• [FG:InPlacePodVerticalScaling] Remove restrictions on subresource flag in kubectl commands kubernetes#128296
• [FG:InPlacePodVerticalScaling] Implement resize for sidecar containers kubernetes#128367
• [FG:InPlacePodVerticalScaling] Implement AllocatedResources status changes for Beta kubernetes#128377

Additionally, please let me know if there are any other PRs in k/k not listed in the description or not linked with this GitHub issue that we should track for this KEP, so that we can maintain accurate status.

The status of this enhancement is marked as at risk for code freeze.

If you anticipate missing code freeze, you can file an exception request in advance. Thank you!

[tallclair]

Thanks @tjons. Yes, I agree this is at risk for code freeze. We have a separate tracking board for this feature here: https://github.com/orgs/kubernetes/projects/178/views/2, and there are quite a few more PRs that need to merge by Thursday. I will continue to push on these, but there's a good chance we miss the deadline. With so many PRs, it will be easier for me to add them after the fact to the PR description.

[tjons]

Hello @tallclair 👋 Enhancements team here,

Unfortunately, the implementation (code related) PR(s) associated with this enhancement is not in the merge-ready state by code-freeze and hence this enhancement is now removed from the 1.32 milestone.

If you still wish to progress this enhancement in 1.32, please file an exception request as soon as possible, within three days. If you have any questions, you can reach out in the #release-enhancements channel on Slack and we'll be happy to help. Thanks!

/milestone clear

[sreeram-venkitesh]

Exception has been filed.

[fsmunoz]

The v1.32 Release Team is APPROVING this Code Freeze exception request. The updated deadline is 19:00 PDT Tuesday, 12th November 2024.
cc @tjons

/milestone v1.32

[tjons]

@tallclair did the work get completed here on time? I was at Kubecon, so if you could point me in the direction yes/no that would be great.

[liggitt]

beta promotion did land in kubernetes/kubernetes#128682, but was reverted in kubernetes/kubernetes#128875 due to multiple issues

[liggitt]

So for 1.32, the state is that lots of work landed, but the feature remained in alpha

[fsmunoz]

cc @tjons , we need to update the tracking.

[tjons]

Thanks for the update! Will remove this from the milestone accordingly

/milestone clear

[haircommander]

/reopen

A github workflow autoclosed when I set to done 🙃 sorry for the noise

[k8s-ci-robot]

@haircommander: Reopened this issue.

In response to this:

/reopen

A github workflow autoclosed when I set to done 🙃 sorry for the noise

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.