Code change:
return devs.deviceIds } <ins> // Populates allocatedResources with the device resources allocated to the specified <podUID, contName>. func (pdev podDevices) addContainerAllocatedResources(podUID, contName string, allocatedResources map[string]sets.String) { containers, exists := pdev[podUID] if !exists { return } resources, exists := containers[contName] if !exists { return } for resource, devices := range resources { allocatedResources[resource] = allocatedResources[resource].Union(devices.deviceIds) } } // Removes the device resources allocated to the specified <podUID, contName> from allocatedResources. func (pdev podDevices) removeContainerAllocatedResources(podUID, contName string, allocatedResources map[string]sets.String) { containers, exists := pdev[podUID] if !exists { return } resources, exists := containers[contName] if !exists { return } for resource, devices := range resources { allocatedResources[resource] = allocatedResources[resource].Difference(devices.deviceIds) } } </ins> // Returns all of devices allocated to the pods being tracked, keyed by resourceName. func (pdev podDevices) devices() map[string]sets.String { ret := make(map[string]sets.String)

Related discussion:
text: 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.