Blocking API calls during a scheduling cycle like the DRA plugin is doing slow
down overall scheduling, i.e. also affecting pods which don't use DRA.
It is easy to move the blocking calls into a goroutine while the scheduling
cycle ends with "pod unschedulable". The hard part is handling an error when
those API calls then fail in the background. There is a solution for that
(see https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/120963), but it's complex.
Instead, publishing the modified PodSchedulingContext can also be done
later. In the more common case of a pod which is ready for binding except for
its claims, that'll be in PreBind, which runs in a separate goroutine already.
In the less common case that a pod cannot be scheduled, that'll be in
Unreserve which is still blocking.
This moves adding a pod to ReservedFor out of the main scheduling cycle into
PreBind. There it is done concurrently in different goroutines. For claims
which were specifically allocated for a pod (the most common case), that
usually makes no difference because the claim is already reserved.
It starts to matter when that pod then cannot be scheduled for other reasons,
because then the claim gets unreserved to allow deallocating it. It also
matters for claims that are created separately and then get used multiple times
by different pods.
Because multiple pods might get added to the same claim rapidly independently
from each other, it makes sense to do all claim status updates via patching:
then it is no longer necessary to have an up-to-date copy of the claim because
the patch operation will succeed if (and only if) the patched claim is valid.
Server-side-apply cannot be used for this because a client always has to send
the full list of all entries that it wants to be set, i.e. it cannot add one
entry unless it knows the full list.
When filtering fails because a ResourceClass is missing, we can treat the pod
as "unschedulable" as long as we then also register a cluster event that wakes
up the pod. This is more efficient than periodically retrying.
This is a combination of two related enhancements:
- By implementing a PreEnqueue check, the initial pod scheduling
attempt for a pod with a claim template gets avoided when the claim
does not exist yet.
- By implementing cluster event checks, only those pods get
scheduled for which something changed, and they get scheduled
immediately without delay.
Generating the name avoids all potential name collisions. It's not clear how
much of a problem that was because users can avoid them and the deterministic
names for generic ephemeral volumes have not led to reports from users. But
using generated names is not too hard either.
What makes it relatively easy is that the new pod.status.resourceClaimStatus
map stores the generated name for kubelet and node authorizer, i.e. the
information in the pod is sufficient to determine the name of the
ResourceClaim.
The resource claim controller becomes a bit more complex and now needs
permission to modify the pod status. The new failure scenario of "ResourceClaim
created, updating pod status fails" is handled with the help of a new special
"resource.kubernetes.io/pod-claim-name" annotation that together with the owner
reference identifies exactly for what a ResourceClaim was generated, so
updating the pod status can be retried for existing ResourceClaims.
The transition from deterministic names is handled with a special case for that
recovery code path: a ResourceClaim with no annotation and a name that follows
the Kubernetes <= 1.27 naming pattern is assumed to be generated for that pod
claim and gets added to the pod status.
There's no immediate need for it, but just in case that it may become relevant,
the name of the generated ResourceClaim may also be left unset to record that
no claim was needed. Components processing such a pod can skip whatever they
normally would do for the claim. To ensure that they do and also cover other
cases properly ("no known field is set", "must check ownership"),
resourceclaim.Name gets extended.
The `listAll` function returned a slice where all pointers referred to the same
instance. That instance had the value of the last list entry. As a result, unit
tests only compared that element.
During the reserve phase, the first claim gets reserved in two test
cases. Those two tests must expect that change. That hadn't been noticed before
because that first claim didn't get compared.
The name "PodScheduling" was unusual because in contrast to most other names,
it was impossible to put an article in front of it. Now PodSchedulingContext is
used instead.
