Fix gpus not being considered when counting allocatables

[ElijahQuinones]

Is this a bug fix or adding new feature?
bug fix to address part of gh #2105 gpus not being considered when counting allocatables.

What is this PR about? / Why do we need it?
We need this PR in order to fix the above referenced bug

What testing is done?
Compared manually to list of gpu instances
and created unit tests for instances mentioned in ticket and for a gpu instance with 4 gpus.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @ElijahQuinones. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[torredil]

/ok-to-test

[rdpsin]

Should we do some manual testing by setting up a cluster with GPU instances?

[ElijahQuinones]

Should we do some manual testing by setting up a cluster with GPU instances?

I have manually tested the limit outside of Kubernettes entirely by just spinning up a g4ad.xlarge instance and manually attaching ebs volumes until I hit the limit where all volumes afterwards are stuck in the attaching state this test concluded that 24 volumes could be attached to the g4ad.xlarge which complies with what the documentation provides.

starts at 28
-1 eni
-1 root volume
-1 gpu
-1 instance store
we also end up with 24

Additionally the unit tests for a g4ad.xlarge return the expected value of 24 slots.

however if we feel it would cover more bases I can run the test with a g4ad.xlarge cluster just to make sure there is no gotchas.

[ConnorJC3]

I've personally done enough manual testing to be confident it works

Needs squash otherwise lgtm

[github-actions]

Code Coverage Diff

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
github.com/kubernetes-sigs/aws-ebs-csi-driver/pkg/cloud/volume_limits.go	30.2%	27.1%	-3.1

[torredil]

Thanks for including additional unit tests.
/lgtm

[AndrewSirenko]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: AndrewSirenko

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [AndrewSirenko]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[ConnorJC3]

/label tide/merge-method-squash