Change:
// may make pending pods with matching affinity terms schedulable. func (p *PriorityQueue) AssignedPodAdded(logger klog.Logger, pod *v1.Pod) { p.lock.Lock() <del> p.movePodsToActiveOrBackoffQueue(logger, p.getUnschedulablePodsWithMatchingAffinityTerm(logger, pod), AssignedPodAdd, nil, pod) </del> <ins> // Pre-filter Pods to move by getUnschedulablePodsWithCrossTopologyTerm // because Pod related events shouldn't make Pods that rejected by single-node scheduling requirement schedulable. p.movePodsToActiveOrBackoffQueue(logger, p.getUnschedulablePodsWithCrossTopologyTerm(logger, pod), AssignedPodAdd, nil, pod) </ins> p.lock.Unlock() }

Discussion:
/sig scheduling /kind cleanup Ref: A test helper function creates a goroutine to pop a Pod from the scheduling queue. This goroutine never stops until the scheduling queue is ed or is somehow stopped for waiting for a new Pod. Ideally, when reaching timeout, we should somehow stop from waiting for Pod to be enqueued to activeQ.
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
We can replace this function with and it should be enough? I think we no longer need to maintain this function.
Not enough, the core of this problem is that we cannot cancel once we start . Even if we change function to whatever, we will hit this problem. So, we need:
Or, alternatively and much more easily, maybe we can just replace all with and remove . kills the entire test if reaching timeout and we could care less about leaked goroutine then.
I don't think we can do this. From the test case: The expected behavior of this case is that we receive a timeout to make sure no pods are to . So, reaching timeout is acutally a success. So, I think: option 1: using sth like this in : option2: do sth in the test code This part is where it confused me. The current code is fine as we closed schdulerQueue after called , and after I think there is no test case using this this function anymore(seeems that you refactored the test), so are we trying to solve a potential problem?
Oh, then we can just remove NextPod in the PR.
/assign
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.

This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules: After 90d of inactivity, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, the issue is closed You can: Mark this issue as fresh with Close this issue with Offer to help out with [Issue Triage][1] Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /lifecycle stale [1]:
/close
Closing this issue. <detailsIn response to : /close 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

/sig scheduling /kind bug AssignedPodAdded(): AssignedPodUpdated(): When assigned Pods are created/updated, cluster events (Pod/Add or Pod/Update) should be delivered for all plugins that subscribe those events. But, actually pre-filters Pods to receive those events based on Pods' affinity and . - meaning only PodAffinity/NodeResourceFit receive them actually. The problem here is similar to - in in-tree plugins, PodAffinity, PodTopologySpread and NodeResourceFit subscribe Pod add and/or update events. And, Pods rejected by PodTopologySpread will never be requeued to activeQ by Pod-related events. The same happens for custom plugins registering pod add and/or update events. All Pods will get chances to get back to activeQ by Pod-related events. Run ↓ in No response <detailsmaster </details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details
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
/assign
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules: After 90d of inactivity, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, the issue is closed You can: Mark this issue as fresh with Close this issue with Offer to help out with [Issue Triage][1] Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /lifecycle stale [1]:
/remove-lifecycle stale
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules: After 90d of inactivity, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, the issue is closed You can: Mark this issue as fresh with Close this issue with Offer to help out with [Issue Triage][1] Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /lifecycle stale [1]:
/remove-lifecycle stale