Skip to content

feat: Optimize Pod QoS sort for coscheduling #884

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

feat: Optimize Pod QoS sort for coscheduling #884

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dongjiang1989
Copy link

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

  1. Compare the priorities of Pods.
  2. Compare the Qos of Pods.
  3. Compare the initialization timestamps of PodGroups or Pods.
  4. Compare the keys of PodGroups/Pods: /.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Optimize Pod QoS sort for coscheduling

@dongjiang1989
optimize pod QoS sort
f57925a 
Signed-off-by: dongjiang <[email protected]>
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. labels Apr 1, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dongjiang1989
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign denkensk 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:

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
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @dongjiang1989!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/scheduler-plugins 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/scheduler-plugins has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @dongjiang1989. 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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Apr 1, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Apr 1, 2025
@netlify Netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Apr 1, 2025 •
edited
Loading

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-scheduler-plugins canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit f57925a
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-scheduler-plugins/deploys/67eba82c2320a80008edcdec

@dongjiang1989
Copy link
Author

Is the following order better?

  1. Compare the priorities of Pods.
  2. Compare the initialization timestamps of PodGroups or Pods.
  3. Compare the Qos of Pods.
  4. Compare the keys of PodGroups/Pods: /.

googs1025
googs1025 reviewed Apr 9, 2025
View reviewed changes
pkg/coscheduling/coscheduling.go
func (cs *Coscheduling) Less(podInfo1, podInfo2 *framework.QueuedPodInfo) bool {
prio1 := corev1helpers.PodPriority(podInfo1.Pod)
prio2 := corev1helpers.PodPriority(podInfo2.Pod)
if prio1 != prio2 {
return prio1 > prio2
}

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why do we need to obtain Qos type judgment in coscheduling? 🤔
If I understand correctly, pod have a priority defined by their own priority.
In QoS, it is used as a basis for judging whether to evict, and there is no need to sort QoS.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmmm.... Before comparing CreateTime, it may make more sense to compare the QosClass set by the user.

Or, Compare CreateTime first and then compare QosClass?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I understand createTime seems to be enough, because this change will not solve the issue: #874

Huang-Wei
Huang-Wei reviewed Apr 9, 2025
View reviewed changes
pkg/coscheduling/coscheduling.go
@@ -124,14 +125,26 @@ func (cs *Coscheduling) Name() string {

// Less is used to sort pods in the scheduling queue in the following order.
// 1. Compare the priorities of Pods.
// 2. Compare the initialization timestamps of PodGroups or Pods.
// 3. Compare the keys of PodGroups/Pods: <namespace>/<podname>.
// 2. Compare the Qos of Pods.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This would change the behavior, and comparing QoS is not the intent of this plugin.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Huang-Wei Huang-Wei Huang-Wei left review comments

@googs1025 googs1025 googs1025 left review comments

@PiotrProkop PiotrProkop Awaiting requested review from PiotrProkop

@seanmalloy seanmalloy Awaiting requested review from seanmalloy

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@dongjiang1989 @k8s-ci-robot @Huang-Wei @googs1025