Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
add KEP for cgroups v2 support #1370
add KEP for cgroups v2 support #1370
Changes from all commits
5b4d3d5
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems inconsistent with other namespaces. On cgroup v2 systems, the host cgroup namespace should be enabled only if
PodSpec.HostCgroup
is set to true.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any kuberente versions and plans to support blkio controller ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
kubernetes/enhancements#1907 the KEP is WIP.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, with this option, CRI implementations will need to map the cgroup v1 fields to cgroup v2 values, right?
Could you list what each layer needs to do for each option to make it clear?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the changes in the CRI implementation and OCI runtime might be implemented in a different way, deciding where to draw the line.
For CRI-O+crun, most of the logic is in the OCI runtime itself, but that is not the only way to achieve it.
For the Kubelet, the changes in this patch should be enough (at least until we have not hugetlb available): kubernetes/kubernetes#85218
In the second phase though, when cgroup v2 is fully supported through the stack there is need to change both pod specs+CRI.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can you clarify why you feel the pod spec needs to change? i see no major reason to change the pod spec or resource representation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was assuming we'd like to expose all/most of the cgroup v2 features.
e.g. the memory controller on cgroup v1 allows to configure:
memory.soft_limit_in_bytes
memory.limit_in_bytes
while on cgroup v2 we have:
memory.high
memory.low
memory.max
memory.min
but that is probably out of the scope as each new feature (if needed) must go through its own KEP?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@derekwaynecarr are future improvements based on what cgroup 2 offers out of scope for the current KEP?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@giuseppe future improvements for what cgroup v2 offers should be out of scope of this kep. i would keep this kep focused on kubelet is tolerant of cgroup v2 host. adding new cgroup v2 specific features to resource model would be a separate enhancement.
To address @yujuhong question, I think we are saying the following:
@giuseppe agree with above?