Skip to content

KEP-2724: Add multi-level topology aware scheduling design#9243

Open
Huang-Wei wants to merge 1 commit intokubernetes-sigs:mainfrom
Huang-Wei:tas-multi-layer-KEP
Open

KEP-2724: Add multi-level topology aware scheduling design#9243
Huang-Wei wants to merge 1 commit intokubernetes-sigs:mainfrom
Huang-Wei:tas-multi-layer-KEP

Conversation

@Huang-Wei
Copy link
Contributor

@Huang-Wei Huang-Wei commented Feb 15, 2026

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

Add the design for multi-level TAS, which extends two-level scheduling to support N slice layers across deeper topology hierarchies (e.g., datacenter → block → rack → host).

KEP for #9046.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. labels Feb 15, 2026
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Feb 15, 2026

Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit ba0b5bb
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/kubernetes-sigs-kueue/deploys/6991351d1683bb00080896ac

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Feb 15, 2026
Add the design for multi-level TAS, which extends two-level
scheduling to support N slice layers across deeper topology
hierarchies (e.g., datacenter → block → rack → host).
@kshalot
Copy link
Contributor

kshalot commented Feb 16, 2026

I assume the implementation will be a follow-up, so the release note for this PR should be dropped.

@mimowo
Copy link
Contributor

mimowo commented Feb 16, 2026

/release-note-edit

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. labels Feb 16, 2026
- The value of `kueue.x-k8s.io/podset-slice-size` has to be a numeric value greater or equal
than 1. It has to evenly divide the size of a PodSet.
- The above 2 `podset-slice-*` rules apply to additional slice layers (`kueue.x-k8s.io/podset-slice-required-topology-[X]`)
as well. `[X]` can be up to `2`.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It this just a "sanity" limitation on the API, but the algorithm is generic? In other words, would the algo code need to be changed to support extra layers? Not a blocker, just curious on how generic the algo is.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, the algorithm is generic.

In other words, would the algo code need to be changed to support extra layers?

No core changes needed if we want to support extra layers.

I will submit the PR this week.

Copy link
Contributor

@mimowo mimowo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
/approve

Putting on hold in case others want to review, but I'm happy to proceed with the implementation review.

cc @tenzen-y @gabesaba
/hold

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 16, 2026
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 16, 2026
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

DetailsGit tree hash: 5ae36072db01f2dfaf51930b369c0d8b94a75294

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Huang-Wei, mimowo

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

The pull request process is described here

Details 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 16, 2026
@tenzen-y
Copy link
Member

/lgtm /approve

Putting on hold in case others want to review, but I'm happy to proceed with the implementation review.

cc @tenzen-y @gabesaba /hold

Let me take a look at this proposal tomorrow.

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. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. 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.

5 participants