-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 500
StatefulSet pod reconciliation improvement #8268
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
StatefulSet pod reconciliation improvement #8268
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: j-skiba The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Hi @j-skiba. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a github.com member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions 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. |
|
/ok-to-test |
|
/retest |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
kueue.x-k8s.io/managedfinalizer when StatefulSet pod is in aTerminatingstate (DeletionTimestamp!= nil).Previously, the reconciler only checked for "Terminated" phases (Succeeded/Failed), ignoring deleting pods. This caused reliance on the generic Pod controller or timeouts to clean up finalizers, leading to significant delays in pod deletion (observed in parallel E2E tests) and potential deadlocks.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
based on #8255
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?