jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
do you think if you have time to implement the solution you mentioned in the above comment We can try to get it into a 1.9 sub release. I think for now, lets just support device reuse among initContainers and normal containers. We can revisit this part when we need to guarantee an Allocate call per container.
Right what I am mentioning here is that it is not possible to do that. The point of the device plugin is so that we can execute vendor specific code before making the device available in the container (e.g: Scrub the GPU memory). I don't think the proposed solution addresses this problem.
Sure. But to clarify, I think if we dont't expect big shock on current implementation, we could only provide limited support on the point, that is, without re-generate runtime information for regular containers, only those whose requested resource is equal to or is a subset of that in init containers could make a resuse(e.g. if we have two init containers, each requests 2 devices, then a regular container that request 3 devices still could not reuse the devices.) Besides, if a initcontainer requests 2 devices, and we have two regular containers, each requests 1 device, then due to the lack of runtime info re-generation, the devices could only be reused by one of the containers, not both of them. In sum, since we don't re-generate runtime information, we could only reuse devices per container, not per device, like we do in scheduler. Is that what you mean?
Hmm, that is a good question. I forgot that we now return the combined runtime information in AllocResponse. Then for now, perhaps we should just return an error in device plugin manager Allocate() in case both init containers and containers request the same device plugin resource?
You mean we give up reuse and prohibit users to request same kind of device in init containers and regular containers? that seems a bit weird. And if we decide to do so, we might need to do the check at the first beginning, i.e. in API validation, not wait until it goes into DevicePlugin.
I think for 1.9, we just return an error when both init containers and normal containers of a pod request the same device resource, and document this in the device plugin user guide.
The reason is because in the current device plugin implementation, we don't have a good way to free devices used by init containers of an active pod. It is hard to do this kind of validation at API level or even scheduler because we can't know whether an extended resource is device resource or not. So for now, I think we should probably just return a clear error message during admission handler. I am not sure yet whether there will be strong use cases that need to share devices between init containers and normal containers. We can revisit this based on user feedback. If there is strong user demand to support this, something we could do is to differentiate init containers and normal containers in podDevices, and free up devices used by init containers when any normal container is about to run. That would request some code structure change, and we may wait to see whether there is strong demand to support this.
It is hard to do this at API level or even scheduler because we can't know whether an extended resource is device resource or not. Oh, you are right, I ignored the resource awareness issue. I also agree that it's hard to address the issue without big change to current implementation. But I still feel the inconsistency of behavior between API and kubelet might confusing users. However, its effect should be sustainable, since we haven't received feedback about init containers up to now.
Right. So for now, perhaps just return an error when this happens, to give clear error signals.
Oh, I'm afraid we miss something, the check may not work as expected. As I commented, because init-containers run sequentially, we did reuse between init containers in , that is, if we have two init containers, each request 1 device, then we expect 1 device in total in scheduler, but expect 2 in deviceplugin. The check could not cover the scenario.
Thinking about this problem a bit more, I wonder whether we may tackle this issue from the following approaches, ordered by their complexities: 1) Just return an error whenever an init container requests a device plugin resource, and document in the device plugin user guide that requiring device plugin resource in init containers are not supported. This may be the short-term change we can try to get into 1.9. 2) Maintain a list of devices allocated to init containers in ManagerImpl.Allocate().
Try to allocate from this list first for later init containers and normal containers. The required no. of devices we pass to ManagerImpl.devicesToAllocate() should subtract the no. of devices we have allocated to init containers. This may require some code structure change around ManagerImpl.Allocate(), ManagerImpl.allocateContainerResources(), and ManagerImpl.devicesToAllocate(). However, Allocate gRPC call is still issued during Admission all together, and it is possible that we issue an Allocate gRPC for [dev1] (say dev1 allocated to initContianer1), followed by another Allocate gRPC call for [dev1, dev2] (say dev1 and dev2 allocated to initContainer2), with none of containers started or finished. This assumes containers running in the same pod share the same security context, and device plugin doesn't need to perform per-container allocation operations. We just use Allocate gRPC call to learn container runtime settings. 3) Take a further step from 2), during Admission, we just determine what devices to allocate to containers without issuing the actual Allocate gRPC calls. I.e., we only fill deviceIds field in podDevices.deviceAllocateInfo but leaves allocResp field empty. During ManagerImpl.GetDeviceRunContainerOptions(), we check for this case and issue the actual Allocate gRPC call for the container. This ensures we can issue a gRPC Allocate call per container. However, if a pod is restarted multiple times, we don't guarantee Allocate gRPC call will be issued during subsequent pod runs. 4) Take a further step from 3), we can check for overlapping device allocations in ManagerImpl.GetDeviceRunContainerOptions() and invalidate their allocResp so that an Allocate gRPC call will be issued next time for containers using re-allocated devices. E.g., for containerA, if we find it is allocated with [dev1, dev2] and dev1 is also allocated to containerB, we set containerB's allocResp to nil so that next time before containerB is running, we will issue an Allocate gRPC call for dev1. Note that this approach does have the drawback that device plugin failure would cause previously running pods not be able to restart, so we need to carefully evaluate our use cases to see whether we need to implement this. My suggestion is to implement 1) now and gather some user feedbacks to determine whether we need to implement the following approaches.
I see this a very big limitation. Special devices/resources in init containers is a very common use case IMO. Therefore we should try to fix this. This approach perfectly makes sense to me. What is your concern in implementing this? Even today, IIUC, Allocate call is made per container. Is there any other value that this approach is adding over 1) ? I am not able to see any gains with 2) or 3) over 1). Comments please.
I feel we may not be able to implement 2) for 1.9 timeframe. Option 2) also doesn't address the case mentioned above: Option 3) covers that case for pods without restarts. Option 4) fully covers the requirement we we will scrub old container data before giving it to a new container, even if they both run in the same pod, bug it does have the mentioned drawback during device plugin failure.
Take a further step from 3), we can check for overlapping device allocations in ManagerImpl.GetDeviceRunContainerOptions() and invalidate their allocResp so that an Allocate gRPC call will be issued next time for containers using re-allocated devices. E.g., for containerA, if we find it is allocated with [dev1, dev2] and dev1 is also allocated to containerB, we set containerB's allocResp to nil so that next time before containerB is running, we will issue an Allocate gRPC call for dev1. Note that this approach does have the drawback that device plugin failure would cause previously running pods not be able to restart, so we need to carefully evaluate our use cases to see whether we need to implement this. How about making the allocation call optional? That is , if we find a contaienr using re-allocated devices, we'd try to issue an Allocate gRPC call first, and still use the cached setting if allocation failed. And, if we decide not to address the issue in v1.9, which means we have enough time to work on it later, I think approach 2) might not be a good choice. Because it has a premise that devices are stateless, recycle actions before reuse(e.g: Scrub the GPU memory mentioned above) could not be supported. And this way, as I commented above, we could only reuse devices per container, not per device, like we do in scheduler.
I noticed that you have already add the limitation into the , so I think it's already the decision that we add the limitation as a short-time solution in v1.9 So I posted a PR to add the check in code,, PTAL :)
Use Case: Let say there is a which node has two Devices of a resource type X and the device IDs are X1 and X2. User pod has one init container, lets call it cont-init and one regular container, lets call it cont-reg. Both cont-init and cont-reg requests 2 unit of resource X. cont-init will run some vendor specific code on allocated Devices and then cont-reg will use these 'initiated' devices. I think this is the use case that mentioned. And i feel 2) can handle this. 2) approach will allocate both the devices, X1 and X2, to both the containers. When the containers start, init container, cont-init, will be run first and will run to completion and here devices will get initialized. Strictly after this cont-reg will be started and now this regular container has initialized devices. Where i am wrong?
I guess in RenaudWasTaken 's case, the initialization task is considered to be managed in the plugin, not in init-container, and in init-container we only use the device, so then we might need to call plugin to do recycle action before the device reused by reguler containers. In practical use, both of the two scenarios may exist, it depends on the request of user. Besides, if we don't issue an Allocate gRPC call, we could not ensure a ”complete reuse“: say an init-container requests 2 devices, and we have two regular containers, each requests 1 device, then due to the lack of runtime info re-generation, the devices could only be reused by one of the containers, not both of them.
It is the init containers' job to initialize things and if in some special case device plugin is doing the initialization part, in that case, init containers will not be needed and serve no purpose in pod spec. Specific to example of memory scrubbing, i think this also makes more sense to be done in init container. Once Device's memory is scrubbed, it can be used by regular container. Let try to run your use case with approach 2).
There are three containers in pod, cont-init(requested 2 unit or resource X), cont-reg1(requested 1 unit of resource X) and cont-reg2(requested 1 unit of resource X). Now in approach 2), gRPC Allocate call is made for cont-init requesting X1 and X2. Next, gRPC Allocate call is made for cont-reg1. This time resource id will be send in Allocate from the previously allocated [X1, X2]. Lets say X1 is requested for cont-reg1 Next, gRPC Allocate for cont-reg2 and resource with ID X2. All this allocation info gets stored in internal cache. Now when container runs, runtimeOptions will be collected from internal cache. Where do you see a problem in this flow?
/cc
Yep, it could work if the plugin behavior the way you described, but I'm not sure if all kinds of devices could support "pre-allocation", that is, doing allocation on a same device multiple times at the same time, to prepare runtime informations for several containers that reuse the device later. Also I have no idea if all plugin developers consider their plugins "stateless", that is, managing initialization in init-containers. As I don't have enough knowledge on hardware, would like to hear opinions from other guys :)
This would defeat the purpose of a container. In the case of GPUs, when you run a container you expect the GPU to always be in the same state. Furthermore GPUs can't be shared (exclusive usage) between containers meaning that Init containers should behave in the same way as regular containers. With the only difference being that they are executed sequentially and before regular containers. Additionally, operations to setup a device before making them available in a container, whether functionally (load the driver, insert libraries, ....) or security wise (scrub the memory), should be handled by the infrastructure not the users pod spec.
I agree that it's a sane behavior to forbid the use of Device Plugin Resources in Init Containers for the 1.9 release
moving forward,
/cc I think what long-term solution we decide to implement will largely depend on use-case requirements from different device plugins. Would like to hear some thoughts from different device plugin developers on this. Can people cc-ed in this issue take a look at the proposed options mentioned in and provide some feedbacks on which one may better fit your use cases?
Answering on behalf of and Solution 1 makes sense for the moment Solution 2 defeats the purpose of the device plugin, which is setting up a device before making it available to a container. solution 4 seems to be a sane solution. As mentioned in my previous comment, as long as devices are exclusive, I expect the devices exposed in my container to always be in the same state at the start of my container. When / If we implement a mechanism for sharing a GPU / devices across containers then the scenario described by is something that we can have. It doesn't however fit the current situation.
Solution number 1 seems totally reasonable short-term. Long term, simplifying and documenting the relationship between plugin callbacks and container lifecycle would help plugin authors.
For reference, I implemented option 2 solution in PR The change itself is small. This is an alternative short-term fix we may consider to get into a 1.9 patch release. I think the main benefit of taking this fix compared to Option 1 solution is that we can change the underlying implementation to support init containers later with less user-facing impact.
No mater we take PR or PR for 1.9, I think we need to have this issue approved for 1.9 milestone. or or can any of you approve this issue for 1.9? Thanks!
We for uploading to GCS on , but not on successful e2e runs or failed test -up. We should definitely be dumping those logs for failed cluster-ups, and it would also be nice to throw in the successes too (good to have recent green for comparison).
Getting logs uploaded on a failed test -up seems really important for debugging.
+1 There were just a bunch of failures in scalability test suite (run 1623-1628) that failed because not all system pods were running. Since there are no logs, there is no easy way to debug it. It would be super useful to have all the logs for failed cluster-ups. cc
Unless I'm confused, it looks as if these logs are still not being uploaded. FYI.
For example: gs://kubernetes-jenkins/logs/kubernetes-e2e-gce/7500
That particular build was a timeout. When Jenkins kills the job, the log-collecting code never runs.
Another case we won't collect logs is if the cluster fails to initialize. (Which is a really important place to collect logs, but it's not a trivial fix.)
Moving this into post, since it seems unlikely to get fixed in the near term. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
We also don't collect logs on test job timeouts, which is frustrating.
+1
will collect the logs when the cluster fails to initialize. That's not all the cases listed here, but it's a good one.
I'd like to bump the priority for this further - we don't have any logs to help with debugging , which started to happen more often recently - it seems that didn't help. cc
I have too many P0s assigned to me already. This is at least 3rd in line right now.
This one is half year old and is P0 for a month...
From discussion with on hangouts, a vague plan: move log-dumping logic from into a standalone command in something like (feel free to bikeshed the name) update Jenkins to call this command as a post-build step probably remove and the debug stuff recently to . Right now the stuff is pretty GCE/GKE specific and uses ssh. We should probably change to a more provider-agnostic method, but this would be a good start.
Hm, actually, post-build step actually won't work, since we tear down the cluster first.
But making it a separate command can still let us call it in more places.
FYI - we also need logs from timed-out runs (not only the failed ones).
moving out into its own binary should help accomplish this.
I'm worried that the best way to do this is to write a bash script that grabs IPs from 's and functions and just does an ssh and cats the logs. Then we could point at that. It's sorta difficult to make work on its own.
I think at this point we're happy with anything that usually works. We can work on making in nice and shiny later.
We now get logs when kube-up fails, which recently happened :) Still some work to do here, I'll leave this issue open until timeouts are handled properly and points here.
- I can't thank you enough!
Ok, is in so we should get logs for kubernetes-e2e-* jobs and PR Jenkins jobs on timeout.
I'm gonna call this done.
<!-- Please use this template while reporting a bug and provide as much info as possible. Not doing so may result in your bug not being addressed in a timely manner. Thanks! If the matter is security related, please disclose it privately via --If the provide is , run the below storage testcase, Hit below exception, At first glance, it looks like the return value is not correct, but looking into how the testcases was wrote, the root case should be that the testcase below doesn't support the provide, SSD PD on GCE/GKE gp2 EBS on AWS We should provide the correct error message which will be useful for trouble shooting instead. Kubernetes version (use ): All Cloud provider or hardware configuration: local OS (e.g: ): All Kernel (e.g. ): Install tools: Network plugin and version (if this is a network-related bug): Others:
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/sig testing /sig storage /assign
NOTE: the "local" provider is specifically hack/local-up- any other cluster that is not one of "gce" etc. should use the default provider / "skeleton" provider (I know the naming is bad, but it's sort of an API now)
/remove-sig testing
This whole set of tests (if it can't be run) should be omitted from the test execution, otherwise folks running on Mac can't verify everything else is clean in a sane fashion. Passive aggressive assign to Tim, I may get around to fixing this before he does.
Last I checked Travis + Go didn't work. We should check again, and enable OS X builds in Travis if it's possible.
You could argue that if the unsupported mount () is being called in a test, there is a problem anyway - it has to run as root. Will investigate. On Jan 25, 2015 9:09 AM, "Brendan Burns" wrote:
Without a Mac to test on, I feel like this would be better fixed by someone who uses Mac... Probably: just rename to I just discovered "implicit build constraints", sigh. Go is crossing from user-friendly to sort of absurd, IMO.
Instead, have a presubmit test that verifies that the docs can be generated. This will reduce the number of conflicts & rebases, therefore increase speed through the queue. Confirmed with that nothing depends on these docs at the moment. fyi, some manual process might have to change once this is in.
Yes, we want to generate the docs into , anyway. cc
Excellent. One closer step to YAML generation, I hope. :)
was interested in working on this.
Want to get started on this?
is this still a goal of ours?
I've seen a thread this week-end about that. I think docs have moved but we still need to generate them there.
can this issue be closed then?
related to ?
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. Prevent issues from auto-closing with an comment. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale /lifecycle frozen There's still cruft in the docs directory.
/remove-help I don't think this meets . Please add back via if I'm incorrect
/sig docs /sig release /remove-area test-infra /area build-release /area kubeadm /area kubectl All of the following dirs/files have the following content. Do we need them? This file is autogenerated, but we've stopped checking such files into the repository to reduce the need for rebases. Please run hack/generate- to populate this file. docs/admin: .md files for kube components and kubeadm commands man/man1: .1 files for same user-guide/kubectl: .md files for kubectl commands yaml/kubectl: .yaml files for kubectl commands
/help Now that we have /good-first-issue, I think this does meet the criteria for help wanted. Probably need to talk to someone from sig-docs and figure out if/how these are used.
This request has been marked as needing help from a contributor. Please ensure the request meets the requirements listed . If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed by commenting with the command.
<detailsIn response to : /help Now that we have /good-first-issue, I think this does meet the criteria for help wanted. Probably need to talk to someone from sig-docs and figure out if/how these are used. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/remove-priority important-soon /priority important-longterm This hasn't been committed to for any release cycle in a while. I hope someone does commit to it, but I personally cannot, so I'm bumping down to the "hopefully next time" priority. /kind cleanup in addition to docs This impacts merge velocity of any kubectl/kubeadm changes because the docs/OWNERS file is small. We're going to work around by adding OWNERS files for the relevant sigs to the relevant dirs. But if these files don't have to exist in the first place, that'd be even better.
as discovered today this would not work as OWNERS in sub-folders do not solve the problem with the /docs/.generated_docs file which is in the parent folder. i've been looking into a solution to remove the placeholders completely and make verify-docs only consist of kube::util::gen-docs. this will: ensure that godoc errors and such still block presubmits the contributors are not blocked having to commit placeholder files
/lifecycle active
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale /lifecycle active as PR is still in flight.