Code change:
is recording the time that a Pod is gated. We use the timestamp when the scheduler inserts the pod into the queue: The period of time when a Pod fails PreEnque (like being gated) shouldn't be accounted in the podschedulingdurationseconds. Create a Pod with scheduling gates. Wait some time before removing the gate. Observe the metric No response <details</details<detailsAny </details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details
/sig scheduling
/help /triage accepted
This request has been marked as needing help from a contributor. Please ensure that the issue body includes answers to the following questions: Why are we solving this issue? To address this issue, are there any code changes? If there are code changes, what needs to be done in the code and what places can the assignee treat as reference points? Does this issue have zero to low barrier of entry? How can the assignee reach out to you for help? For more details on the requirements of such an issue, please see and ensure that they are met. If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed by commenting with the command. <detailsIn response to : /help /triage accepted 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
would you want to take a stab on this issue?
Yup, I can give it a shot. /assign helayoty
, as we discussed, we can address this issue with different solutions: the pod timestamp to the current time , so the gated time is substituted. timestamp . Use a pointer to the InitialAttemptTimestamp and interpret as the newest timestamp so the pod will go to the back of the queue. I'll go ahead and implement solution no. 3, wdyt?
sgtm. Any concerns ?
I think it should be option 1 + 3, and pInfo.Timestamp should be pInfo.InitialAttemptTimestamp, right? as records the time based on :
I think we should revisit this issue, in terms of its assumption: So is it reasonable to always exclude time spent in PreEnqueue from ? Note that PreEnqueue != SchedulingGates, is one of the PreEnqueue's usecases. In other words, some user of PreEnqueue may want to include the time spent in PreEnqueue.
is a signal that cluster providers can use to build SLOs. The time spent before passing PreEnqueue is not under control of kube-scheduler, so considering it would not allow to build an SLO. Are you aware of other users of PreEnqueue?
True, but comparing to state that metric X can or cannot be used to build SLO (which is hard IMO), I'm in favor of giving suggestion on SLI/SLO's semantic definition, for example: the official SLI definition of has a footnote clearly explaining its definition: So if a pod is gated, it's not "immediately schedulable", and hence doesn't fall into the definition of podstartup_latency.
A viable solution might be providing an extra label like to explicitly exclude the time spent on preenqueue.
That is true, but there is no way today to exclude those pods from the metric, or separate the time. Maybe we need an extra metric, but I think the new metric could be the one that includes the time guarded in PreEnqueue. It should probably be part of the KEP. The old metric is already stable, so we can't add labels. And it might already be in use for SLOs.
cc
I think we should be working on that. And treat it as part of GA requirement for PodSchedulingReadiness.
An edge(maybe not edge) case is a pod's scheduling attempts is 0 but the is a long time, so prefer not to account for the waiting time when gated. For users not using PreEnqueue, they will not be impacted, but for users using PreEnqueue, it's a break change for it increases the duration time. And we can add a new metric like to measure how long a pod stays in a scheduler.
I thought of "attempts", it's just I'm not sure it's a good idea to rely on "attempts" to define a SLI/SLO, b/c "attempts" is obtained from the in-memory object and in a HA config env, it's only updated by the primary scheduler instance. In other words, the value is inaccurate when the lease owner switches.
attempt=0 is good enough for most scenarios
do we have a conclusion? Should we move on with the solution or remove this issue and the linked PR from the current release?
I would like to move forward with this proposal. ?
To move it forward, I think we should add new metric(s) to explicitly tell it's including or excluding the time spent on PreEnqueue. Given is in stable level: We will need a new metric like "podschedulingexcludingpreenqueuedurationseconds".
28 Bug Triage Shadow here. Just checking-in, if this is still on track for the 1.28 release?
We don't have a conclusion yet, but as a bug, it should qualify for changes after the freezes.

Related discussion:
text: if pInfo.Attempts != wantAttempts { t.Errorf("[%s] Pod schedule attempt unexpected, got %v, want %v", name, pInfo.Attempts, wantAttempts) } <del> if pInfo.InitialAttemptTimestamp != wantInitialAttemptTs { t.Errorf("[%s] Pod initial schedule attempt timestamp unexpected, got %v, want %v", name, pInfo.InitialAttemptTimestamp, wantInitialAttemptTs) </del> <ins> if *pInfo.InitialAttemptTimestamp != wantInitialAttemptTs { t.Errorf("[%s] Pod initial schedule attempt timestamp unexpected, got %v, want %v", name, *pInfo.InitialAttemptTimestamp, wantInitialAttemptTs) </ins> } }