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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
KEP-3327: Add CPUManager policy option to align CPUs by Socket instead of by NUMA node #3334
KEP-3327: Add CPUManager policy option to align CPUs by Socket instead of by NUMA node #3334
Changes from 1 commit
32b4019
baa7ccd
3cef13f
7133fed
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.
Are there any feedback / status back to the users if the kubelet meet its CPU alignment request or not?
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 is true for systems with multiple NUMA nodes per Socket but not for the ones with multiple sockets per NUMA. In the latter case with TopologyManager “single-numa-node” policy, we could potentially get CPUs that span multiple sockets and with “align-by-socket” policy option enabled the goal should be to try to align those by socket?
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 is something, i will need to think more!
This KEP covers cases of DualSocketMultiNUMAPerSocketHT
Let me think on situation where a single NUMA can span multiple sockets (ex DualNumaMultiSocketPerNumaHT) and update once i have some definitive answer
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 we please have few examples of architectures we are targeting where a single NUMA can span multiple sockets?
I'm aware such architecture existed in the past, but I'm not sure the hardware is heading in this direction.
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 think we could do one of 2 things here:
align-by-socket-or-numa-whichever-wraps-the-other
(bad name, but you get the point).align-by-socket
is set and the machine has more than one socket per numa node.I would lean towards 2, as I think it is rare to find a machine with this configuration nowadays.
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.
Updated the KEP, i am leaning towards erring out in case there are more than one socket per NUMA
We can address this use case if we see real world architecture leaning in that direction.
I am open to suggestions
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 agree with @klueska and I prefer approach number 2 as well. Would be fine by me.
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.
+1 on erroring out for now. It is a rare case, but might still exist for VMs. Some large VM might span multiple sockets using vNUMA.
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.
AFAIK, but I'll obviously defer the autorithative answer to PRRs, that this is meant to ask for more readily observable options, like metrics, or object statuses, or system properties. This (detailed) tests works of course.
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.
Thanks for pointing out! There was not no relevant metric for CPUManager policy option, so put down the test case taking a cue from other policy options 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.
non-blocking, asking for my understanding. Would a system with 2 sockets and 4 NUMA nodes be OK as well?
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.
Yes, 2 socket and 4 NUMA is ok as well.
Above line is fixed in latest version.
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 think it is sufficient to connect to the podresources API and send a
List
call; inspecting the input should provide all the needed informations.I know of a few command line podresources clients, but not an recommended tool (no
crictl
equivalent to say).