Clarify ResourceQuota limit for PriorityClass #26273

Cweiping · 2021-01-28T08:45:55Z

According to the priorityClass design document, improve the priorityClass that can be configured by users through Resourcequota.
Reference proposal doc: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/scheduling/pod-priority-resourcequota.md#sample-user-story-1
/kind feature
/language en

netlify · 2021-01-28T08:55:36Z

Deploy preview for kubernetes-io-master-staging ready!

Built with commit 188ccc2

https://deploy-preview-26273--kubernetes-io-master-staging.netlify.app

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

Cweiping · 2021-02-02T07:18:06Z

Done. Please review again.
@ydFu

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

ydFu · 2021-02-03T03:04:52Z

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-02-03T03:05:05Z

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: c1ccb1280402ff9cb98480ae27bfa89d7a0c72be

Cweiping · 2021-02-03T03:15:13Z

/assign @tengqm
/assign @stfim

sftim · 2021-02-03T13:30:21Z

/sig scheduling

I'd like to get technical review on these changes.

sftim · 2021-02-03T13:30:40Z

(@ydFu - are you providing LGTM on behalf of SIG Scheduling?)

tengqm · 2021-02-04T02:47:27Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

+
+{{< codenew file="policy/priority-class-resourcequota.yaml" >}}
+
+```shell script


should this be "shell" rather than "shell script"?

tengqm · 2021-02-04T02:48:41Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

@@ -610,16 +610,23 @@ plugins:
        values: ["cluster-services"]
 ```

-Now, "cluster-services" pods will be allowed in only those namespaces where a quota object with a matching `scopeSelector` is present.
-For example:
+Then, create a corresponding resource quota object in `kube-system` namespace:


Suggested change

Then, create a corresponding resource quota object in `kube-system` namespace:

Then, create a resource quota object in the `kube-system` namespace:

tengqm · 2021-02-04T02:53:27Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

+```
+
+In this case, a pod creation will be allowed if:
+1. Pod has no priority class and created in any namespace.


Suggested change

1. Pod has no priority class and created in any namespace.

1. the Pod's `priorityClassName` is not specified, or

tengqm · 2021-02-04T02:55:06Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

+
+In this case, a pod creation will be allowed if:
+1. Pod has no priority class and created in any namespace.
+2. Pod has priority class other than `cluster-services` and created in any namespace.


Suggested change

2. Pod has priority class other than `cluster-services` and created in any namespace.

1. the Pod's `priorityClassName` is specified to a value other than "`cluster-services`", or

tengqm · 2021-02-04T02:56:40Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

+In this case, a pod creation will be allowed if:
+1. Pod has no priority class and created in any namespace.
+2. Pod has priority class other than `cluster-services` and created in any namespace.
+3. Pod has priority class `cluster-services` and created in `kube-system` namespace, and passed resource quota check.


Suggested change

3. Pod has priority class `cluster-services` and created in `kube-system` namespace, and passed resource quota check.

1. the Pod's `priorityClassName` is set to "`cluster-services`", it is to be created

in the `kube-system` namespace, and it has passed the resource quota check.

tengqm · 2021-02-04T03:00:31Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

+1. Pod has no priority class and created in any namespace.
+2. Pod has priority class other than `cluster-services` and created in any namespace.
+3. Pod has priority class `cluster-services` and created in `kube-system` namespace, and passed resource quota check.
+Pod creation will be rejected if pod has priority class `cluster-services` and created in namespace other than `kube-system`.


Suggested change

Pod creation will be rejected if pod has priority class `cluster-services` and created in namespace other than `kube-system`.

A Pod creation request is rejected if its `priorityClassName` is set to "`cluster-services`"

and it is to be created in a namespace other than `kube-system`.

ydFu · 2021-02-04T08:44:19Z

(@ydFu - are you providing LGTM on behalf of SIG Scheduling?)

@sftim
Thank you for your question.
I would also like to have more experienced reviewers and approvers provide more professional advice on this PR.
As you said, you will conduct a technical review.
We work together to make the kubernetes/website more perfect.

Signed-off-by: Weiping Cai <[email protected]>

Cweiping · 2021-02-09T08:12:53Z

@tengqm Done.
The Page: https://deploy-preview-26273--kubernetes-io-master-staging.netlify.app/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas/#limit-priority-class-consumption-by-default

irvifa

/lgtm
/sig scheduling

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-02-09T08:53:46Z

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 97b6abf229777050660b21cb8ed11a24f553acf3

sftim

/approve

sftim · 2021-02-09T09:51:59Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

+{{< codenew file="policy/priority-class-resourcequota.yaml" >}}
+
+```shell
+$ kubectl apply -f https://k8s.io/examples/policy/priority-class-resourcequota.yaml -n kube-system


nit:

Suggested change

$ kubectl apply -f https://k8s.io/examples/policy/priority-class-resourcequota.yaml -n kube-system

kubectl apply -f https://k8s.io/examples/policy/priority-class-resourcequota.yaml -n kube-system

sftim · 2021-02-09T09:52:33Z

content/en/examples/policy/priority-class-resourcequota.yaml

+    matchExpressions:
+      - operator : In
+        scopeName: PriorityClass
+        values: ["cluster-services"]


I would add a newline at the end of this manifest so that it looks OK no matter what OS you download it on.

sftim · 2021-02-09T09:52:52Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

+1.  the Pod's `priorityClassName` is set to `cluster-services`, it is to be created
+   in the `kube-system` namespace, and it has passed the resource quota check.
+
+A Pod creation request is rejected if its `priorityClassName` is set to `cluster-services`


nit: What rejects the request?

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-02-09T09:53:17Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sftim, ydFu

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:

~~content/en/OWNERS~~ [sftim]

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

sftim · 2021-02-09T09:53:47Z

/retitle Clarify ResourceQuota limit for PriorityClass

k8s-ci-robot requested review from derekwaynecarr and rajeshdeshpande02 January 28, 2021 08:46

ydFu reviewed Jan 28, 2021

View reviewed changes

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Cweiping force-pushed the feature/clairly_resource_quota_limit_for_PriorityClass branch from 047864a to beb6ea5 Compare January 28, 2021 13:57

ydFu mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2021

REQUEST: New membership for ydFu kubernetes/org#2475

Closed

6 tasks

ydFu reviewed Feb 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Cweiping force-pushed the feature/clairly_resource_quota_limit_for_PriorityClass branch from beb6ea5 to 91ecacf Compare February 2, 2021 08:38

k8s-ci-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 2, 2021

ydFu reviewed Feb 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md Show resolved Hide resolved

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md Show resolved Hide resolved

Cweiping force-pushed the feature/clairly_resource_quota_limit_for_PriorityClass branch from 91ecacf to 3e2e272 Compare February 3, 2021 01:42

ydFu approved these changes Feb 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

k8s-ci-robot assigned ydFu Feb 3, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 3, 2021

k8s-ci-robot assigned tengqm Feb 3, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added the sig/scheduling Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Scheduling. label Feb 3, 2021

tengqm reviewed Feb 4, 2021

View reviewed changes

Clairly Resourcequota limit for PriorityClass

188ccc2

Signed-off-by: Weiping Cai <[email protected]>

Cweiping force-pushed the feature/clairly_resource_quota_limit_for_PriorityClass branch from 3e2e272 to 188ccc2 Compare February 9, 2021 08:05

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 9, 2021

irvifa reviewed Feb 9, 2021

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned irvifa Feb 9, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 9, 2021

sftim reviewed Feb 9, 2021

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 9, 2021

k8s-ci-robot changed the title ~~Clairly Resourcequota limit for PriorityClass~~ Clarify ResourceQuota limit for PriorityClass Feb 9, 2021

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 539e524 into kubernetes:master Feb 9, 2021

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Clarify ResourceQuota limit for PriorityClass #26273

Clarify ResourceQuota limit for PriorityClass #26273

Cweiping commented Jan 28, 2021

netlify bot commented Jan 28, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Cweiping commented Feb 2, 2021

This comment has been minimized.

ydFu commented Feb 3, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 3, 2021

Cweiping commented Feb 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

sftim commented Feb 3, 2021

sftim commented Feb 3, 2021

tengqm Feb 4, 2021

tengqm Feb 4, 2021

tengqm Feb 4, 2021

tengqm Feb 4, 2021

tengqm Feb 4, 2021

tengqm Feb 4, 2021

ydFu commented Feb 4, 2021

Cweiping commented Feb 9, 2021 •

edited

Loading

irvifa left a comment

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 9, 2021

sftim left a comment

sftim Feb 9, 2021

sftim Feb 9, 2021

sftim Feb 9, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 9, 2021

sftim commented Feb 9, 2021


		{{< codenew file="policy/priority-class-resourcequota.yaml" >}}

		```shell script

	Then, create a corresponding resource quota object in `kube-system` namespace:
	Then, create a resource quota object in the `kube-system` namespace:

	1. Pod has no priority class and created in any namespace.
	1. the Pod's `priorityClassName` is not specified, or

	2. Pod has priority class other than `cluster-services` and created in any namespace.
	1. the Pod's `priorityClassName` is specified to a value other than "`cluster-services`", or

	3. Pod has priority class `cluster-services` and created in `kube-system` namespace, and passed resource quota check.
	1. the Pod's `priorityClassName` is set to "`cluster-services`", it is to be created
	in the `kube-system` namespace, and it has passed the resource quota check.

-Pod creation will be rejected if pod has priority class `cluster-services` and created in namespace other than `kube-system`.
+A Pod creation request is rejected if its `priorityClassName` is set to "`cluster-services`"
+and it is to be created in a namespace other than `kube-system`.

	$ kubectl apply -f https://k8s.io/examples/policy/priority-class-resourcequota.yaml -n kube-system
	kubectl apply -f https://k8s.io/examples/policy/priority-class-resourcequota.yaml -n kube-system

Clarify ResourceQuota limit for PriorityClass #26273

Clarify ResourceQuota limit for PriorityClass #26273

Conversation

Cweiping commented Jan 28, 2021

netlify bot commented Jan 28, 2021 • edited Loading

Cweiping commented Feb 2, 2021

This comment has been minimized.

ydFu commented Feb 3, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 3, 2021

Cweiping commented Feb 3, 2021 • edited Loading

sftim commented Feb 3, 2021

sftim commented Feb 3, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ydFu commented Feb 4, 2021

Cweiping commented Feb 9, 2021 • edited Loading

irvifa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 9, 2021

sftim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 9, 2021

sftim commented Feb 9, 2021

netlify bot commented Jan 28, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Cweiping commented Feb 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Cweiping commented Feb 9, 2021 •

edited

Loading