fix: Fix topology spread constraints with zonal volume

[leoryu]

Fixes #1239

Description
At present, topology spread constraints in karpenter has 3 problems:

1. Karpenter inject volume nodeAffinity info to pod, and the nodes not compatible with the volume nodeAffinity are ignored, which will break the topology spread constraints.
2. When karpenter counting domains, the existing nodes which don't have the related domain pod are not counted, this will case missing some domains in topology spread calculations. Has been fixed in https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/karpenter/pull/852/files#diff-17989e9be7eab8ef904a0cd783153c32ac0abed4d5f7c0544673360c0e8027a7R338
3. In topology spread calculations, karpenter chooses a single, random min-counts domain from the eligible domains as the requirement, but the instance with this domain may not be compatible with the volume requirement(s).

The major works of this PR are as follows:

1. Handling pod volume requirements independently.
2. Add all existing nodes' domains in topology spread calculations.
3. Add all candidate domains to topology spread constraints when pod has volume requirement(s).

How was this change tested?
make presubmit
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: leoryu
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign maciekpytel for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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]

Hi @leoryu. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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.

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.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 13786982879

Details

• 90 of 94 (95.74%) changed or added relevant lines in 7 files are covered.
• 2 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.2%) to 81.678%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
pkg/controllers/provisioning/scheduling/topologygroup.go	52	53	98.11%
pkg/controllers/provisioning/scheduling/volumetopology.go	3	4	75.0%
pkg/controllers/provisioning/scheduling/existingnode.go	6	8	75.0%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
pkg/test/expectations/expectations.go	2	95.0%

Totals
Change from base Build 13775162610:	0.2%
Covered Lines:	9638
Relevant Lines:	11800

---

💛 - Coveralls

[leoryu]

@jmdeal @engedaam @tallaxes @jonathan-innis @njtran hi, can you help review this PR?

[engedaam]

/assign @jmdeal

[codeeong]

Hi, any plans to release this soon? I am experiencing this issue as well 🙏

[leoryu]

Hi, any plans to release this soon? I am experiencing this issue as well 🙏

As of now, no one has reviewed the code. I have forked this repo in my project, but this is not what I expected.

[leoryu]

@jmdeal Hi, I have resolved the confilcts of this PR, please help review it. We really want this isssue can be fixed.

[k8s-ci-robot]

PR needs rebase.

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.

[ap-elmo]

Just ran into this issue aswell, would be good for a fix! :D