When someone decides that a Pod should definitely run on a specific node, they
can create the Pod with spec.nodeName already set. Some custom scheduler might
do that. Then kubelet starts to check the pod and (if DRA is enabled) will
refuse to run it, either because the claims are still waiting for the first
consumer or the pod wasn't added to reservedFor. Both are things the scheduler
normally does.
Also, if a pod got scheduled while the DRA feature was off in the
kube-scheduler, a pod can reach the same state.
The resource claim controller can handle these two cases by taking over for the
kube-scheduler when nodeName is set. Triggering an allocation is simpler than
in the scheduler because all it takes is creating the right
PodSchedulingContext with spec.selectedNode set. There's no need to list nodes
because that choice was already made, permanently. Adding the pod to
reservedFor also isn't hard.
What's currently missing is triggering de-allocation of claims to re-allocate
them for the desired node. This is not important for claims that get created
for the pod from a template and then only get used once, but it might be
worthwhile to add de-allocation in the future.
The allocation mode is relevant when clearing the reservedFor: for delayed
allocation, deallocation gets requested, for immediate allocation not. Both
should get tested.
All pre-defined claims now use delayed allocation, just as they would if
created normally.
Enabling logging is useful to track what the code is doing.
There are some functional changes:
- The pod handler checks for existence of claims. This
avoids adding pods to the work queue in more cases
when nothing needs to be done, at the cost of
making the event handlers a bit slower. This will become
more important when adding more work to the controller
- The handler for deleted ResourceClaim did not check for
cache.DeletedFinalStateUnknown.
The recommendation and default in the controller helper code is to set
ReservedFor to the pod which triggered delayed allocation. However, this
is neither required nor enforced. Therefore we should also test the fallback
path were kube-scheduler itself adds the pod to ReservedFor.
We don't need to remember that a pod got deleted when it had no resource claims
because the code which checks the cached UIDs only checks for pods which have
resource claims.
This addresses the following bad sequence of events:
- controller creates ResourceClaim
- updating pod status fails
- pod gets retried before the informer receives
the created ResourceClaim
- another ResourceClaim gets created
Storing the generated ResourceClaim in a MutationCache ensures that the
controller knows about it during the retry.
A positive side effect is that ResourceClaims now get index by pod owner and
thus iterating over existing ones becomes a bit more efficient.
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.
