-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 136
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[YUNIKORN-2068] E2E Test for Preemption #705
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #705 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 71.65% 69.52% -2.14%
==========================================
Files 50 50
Lines 7953 7993 +40
==========================================
- Hits 5699 5557 -142
- Misses 2056 2248 +192
+ Partials 198 188 -10 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rrajesh-cloudera the test case failed during the latest run:
2023-11-07T05:22:50.5444473Z �[0mPreemption �[0m�[1mVerify_preemption_on_specific_node�[0m
2023-11-07T05:22:50.5446062Z �[38;5;243m/home/runner/work/yunikorn-k8shim/yunikorn-k8shim/test/e2e/preemption/preemption_test.go:553�[0m
2023-11-07T05:22:50.5447933Z �[1mSTEP:�[0m Create Two Queue High and Low Guaranteed Limit �[38;5;243m@ 11/07/23 05:22:50.544�[0m
2023-11-07T05:22:50.5455737Z �[1mSTEP:�[0m Port-forward the scheduler pod �[38;5;243m@ 11/07/23 05:22:50.545�[0m
2023-11-07T05:22:50.5459264Z port-forward is already running �[1mSTEP:�[0m Enabling new scheduling config �[38;5;243m@ 11/07/23 05:22:50.545�[0m
2023-11-07T05:22:53.5573043Z �[1mSTEP:�[0m Schedule a number of small, Low priority pause tasks on Low Guaranteed queue (Enough to fill the node) �[38;5;243m@ 11/07/23 05:22:53.556�[0m
2023-11-07T05:22:53.5574921Z �[1mSTEP:�[0m Deploy the sleep pod sleepjob1 to the development namespace �[38;5;243m@ 11/07/23 05:22:53.557�[0m
2023-11-07T05:23:53.7602458Z �[38;5;9m[FAILED]�[0m in [It] - /home/runner/work/yunikorn-k8shim/yunikorn-k8shim/test/e2e/preemption/preemption_test.go:603 �[38;5;243m@ 11/07/23 05:23:53.759�[0m
2023-11-07T05:23:53.7604096Z Unexpected error:
2023-11-07T05:23:53.7613907Z <context.deadlineExceededError>:
2023-11-07T05:23:53.7614589Z context deadline exceeded
2023-11-07T05:23:53.7615095Z {}
@rrajesh-cloudera you can avoid lintern problems by locally running "make lint". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some comments, there's one major. Double check the output of Yunikorn. We don't want to trigger the DaemonSet-specific preemption logic.
} | ||
} | ||
Ω(sandbox1RunningPodsCnt).To(gomega.Equal(2), "One of the pods in root.sandbox1 should be preempted") | ||
errNew := kClient.DeletePods(newNamespace.Name) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Already performed inside AfterEach()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After each function is doing cleanup for a global namespace which is created for all the tests, In this test I am creating a new namespace and doing cleanup at the end of the test function to ensure there is no resources are available. I tried with the Global namespace and was facing some issue so trying to create inside the test script only and clean once execution is done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you need a separate namespace for each test case, that should be done in BeforeEach/AfterEach. If something fails before this code, it will never be cleaned up.
Example:
ginkgo.BeforeEach(func() {
kubeClient = k8s.KubeCtl{}
gomega.Expect(kubeClient.SetClient()).To(gomega.BeNil())
ns = "ns-" + common.RandSeq(10)
ginkgo.By(fmt.Sprintf("Creating namespace: %s for admission controller tests", ns))
var ns1, err1 = kubeClient.CreateNamespace(ns, nil)
gomega.Ω(err1).NotTo(gomega.HaveOccurred())
gomega.Ω(ns1.Status.Phase).To(gomega.Equal(v1.NamespaceActive))
})
...
ginkgo.AfterEach(func() {
ginkgo.By("Tear down namespace: " + ns)
err := kubeClient.TearDownNamespace(ns)
gomega.Ω(err).NotTo(gomega.HaveOccurred())
// call the healthCheck api to check scheduler health
ginkgo.By("Check YuniKorn's health")
checks, err2 := yunikorn.GetFailedHealthChecks()
gomega.Ω(err2).ShouldNot(gomega.HaveOccurred())
gomega.Ω(checks).Should(gomega.Equal(""), checks)
})
6. This should trigger preemption on low-priority queue and remove or preempt task from low priority queue | ||
7. Do cleanup once test is done either passed or failed | ||
*/ | ||
time.Sleep(20 * time.Second) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we start with a 20 second sleep? Looks very arbitrary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The Cleanup for other tests is taking time and because of that the test which I added is failing intermittently for a few k8s versions. Added a sleep before the execution of test so it will trigger once the cleanup is done and resources are available to allocate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's interesting. I think the reason is that tests are not using different namespaces. See my comment below, you need to create/destroy a namespace for each test. This is what solved many problems for the admission controller tests, they often interfered with each other, debugging was difficult. A new namespace for every test solved it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi Peter, Checked your comments and tried that approach but that required a lot of changes since we are using common namespace for all the tests so need to update each namespace as well. Also facing some issue with your approach.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why does it need a lot of changes? That's what we're doing everywhere. Tests should be isolated by different namespaces. This 20 seconds sleep is only acceptable as a workaround. I'll try to see how difficult that is, but at least this must be addressed in a follow-up JIRA. This cannot stay as is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, I can see what the problem is. I'll create a JIRA to separate the test cases. It's unacceptable to have all tests in a single namespace. They can easily interfere with each other.
@@ -572,3 +656,11 @@ func createSandbox1SleepPodCofigs(cnt, time int) []k8s.SleepPodConfig { | |||
} | |||
return sandbox1Configs | |||
} | |||
|
|||
func createSandbox1SleepPodCofigsWithStaticNode(cnt, time int) []k8s.SleepPodConfig { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"WithRequiredNode" or "WithNodeSelector" sounds better
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Acknowledged.
func createSandbox1SleepPodCofigsWithStaticNode(cnt, time int) []k8s.SleepPodConfig { | ||
sandbox1Configs := make([]k8s.SleepPodConfig, 0, cnt) | ||
for i := 0; i < cnt; i++ { | ||
sandbox1Configs = append(sandbox1Configs, k8s.SleepPodConfig{Name: fmt.Sprintf("sleepjob%d", i+1), NS: devNew, Mem: sleepPodMemLimit2, Time: time, Optedout: k8s.Allow, Labels: map[string]string{"queue": "root.sandbox1"}, RequiredNode: nodeName}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This part is very suspicious. You're using the "RequiredNode" setting here, which will trigger the "simple" (aka. RequiredNode) preemption logic inside Yunikorn. That is not the generic preemption logic that Craig worked on.
Please check if the console log of Yunikorn contains this:
log.Log(log.SchedApplication).Info("Triggering preemption process for daemon set ask",
zap.String("ds allocation key", ask.GetAllocationKey()))
If this is the case (which is VERY likely), changes are necessary.
A trivial solution is to enhance the RequiredNode
field, it has to be a struct like:
type RequiredNode struct {
Node string
DaemonSet bool
}
type SleepPodConfig struct {
...
Mem int64
RequiredNode RequiredNode
Optedout AllowPreemptOpted
}
If DaemonSet == false, then this code doesn't run:
yunikorn-k8shim/test/e2e/framework/helpers/k8s/pod_conf.go
Lines 76 to 77 in 28995cd
owner := metav1.OwnerReference{APIVersion: "v1", Kind: constants.DaemonSetType, Name: "daemonset job", UID: "daemonset"} | |
owners = []metav1.OwnerReference{owner} |
So this line effectively becomes:
sandbox1Configs = append(sandbox1Configs,
k8s.SleepPodConfig{
Name: fmt.Sprintf("sleepjob%d", i+1),
NS: devNew, Mem: sleepPodMemLimit2,
Time: time,
Optedout: k8s.Allow,
Labels: map[string]string{"queue": "root.sandbox1"},
RequiredNode: RequiredNode{Node: nodeName, DeamonSet: false}
}
)
The existing tests inside simple_preemptor_test.go
are affected.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Have you looked at this? Again, the tests should address YUNIKORN-2068. RequiredNodePreemptor does not use the predicates.
Hi @pbacsko , @craigcondit , @manirajv06 , @FrankYang0529 Please review the PR and provide your inputs. |
@rrajesh-cloudera as I mentioned in my comment (#705 (comment)) I don't think this test properly verifies what it is intended to. At this point I'm not even sure that we need an e2e test, because we're trying to replicate a scenario which causes (or used to cause) a race condition. A smoke test using We can make a decision after everyone is back from vacation. |
@rrajesh-cloudera please follow-up on my comment and check if the text "Triggering preemption process for daemon set ask" is present in the YK logs or not. I assume you can run the test locally in isolation. |
Added a new test case to cover preemption scenarios on a specific node.
What type of PR is it?
What is the Jira issue?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-2069