diff --git a/keps/prod-readiness/sig-scheduling/5194.yaml b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-scheduling/5194.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..c6101a46039
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-scheduling/5194.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+kep-number: 5194
+alpha:
+  approver: "@wojtek-t"
diff --git a/keps/sig-scheduling/5194-reserved-for-workloads/README.md b/keps/sig-scheduling/5194-reserved-for-workloads/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..a6af2339da5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-scheduling/5194-reserved-for-workloads/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,842 @@
+<!--
+**Note:** When your KEP is complete, all of these comment blocks should be removed.
+
+To get started with this template:
+
+- [ ] **Pick a hosting SIG.**
+  Make sure that the problem space is something the SIG is interested in taking
+  up. KEPs should not be checked in without a sponsoring SIG.
+- [ ] **Create an issue in kubernetes/enhancements**
+  When filing an enhancement tracking issue, please make sure to complete all
+  fields in that template. One of the fields asks for a link to the KEP. You
+  can leave that blank until this KEP is filed, and then go back to the
+  enhancement and add the link.
+- [ ] **Make a copy of this template directory.**
+  Copy this template into the owning SIG's directory and name it
+  `NNNN-short-descriptive-title`, where `NNNN` is the issue number (with no
+  leading-zero padding) assigned to your enhancement above.
+- [ ] **Fill out as much of the kep.yaml file as you can.**
+  At minimum, you should fill in the "Title", "Authors", "Owning-sig",
+  "Status", and date-related fields.
+- [ ] **Fill out this file as best you can.**
+  At minimum, you should fill in the "Summary" and "Motivation" sections.
+  These should be easy if you've preflighted the idea of the KEP with the
+  appropriate SIG(s).
+- [ ] **Create a PR for this KEP.**
+  Assign it to people in the SIG who are sponsoring this process.
+- [ ] **Merge early and iterate.**
+  Avoid getting hung up on specific details and instead aim to get the goals of
+  the KEP clarified and merged quickly. The best way to do this is to just
+  start with the high-level sections and fill out details incrementally in
+  subsequent PRs.
+
+Just because a KEP is merged does not mean it is complete or approved. Any KEP
+marked as `provisional` is a working document and subject to change. You can
+denote sections that are under active debate as follows:
+
+```
+<<[UNRESOLVED optional short context or usernames ]>>
+Stuff that is being argued.
+<<[/UNRESOLVED]>>
+```
+
+When editing KEPS, aim for tightly-scoped, single-topic PRs to keep discussions
+focused. If you disagree with what is already in a document, open a new PR
+with suggested changes.
+
+One KEP corresponds to one "feature" or "enhancement" for its whole lifecycle.
+You do not need a new KEP to move from beta to GA, for example. If
+new details emerge that belong in the KEP, edit the KEP. Once a feature has become
+"implemented", major changes should get new KEPs.
+
+The canonical place for the latest set of instructions (and the likely source
+of this file) is [here](/keps/NNNN-kep-template/README.md).
+
+**Note:** Any PRs to move a KEP to `implementable`, or significant changes once
+it is marked `implementable`, must be approved by each of the KEP approvers.
+If none of those approvers are still appropriate, then changes to that list
+should be approved by the remaining approvers and/or the owning SIG (or
+SIG Architecture for cross-cutting KEPs).
+-->
+# KEP-5194: DRA ReservedFor Workloads
+
+<!--
+This is the title of your KEP. Keep it short, simple, and descriptive. A good
+title can help communicate what the KEP is and should be considered as part of
+any review.
+-->
+
+<!--
+A table of contents is helpful for quickly jumping to sections of a KEP and for
+highlighting any additional information provided beyond the standard KEP
+template.
+
+Ensure the TOC is wrapped with
+  <code>&lt;!-- toc --&rt;&lt;!-- /toc --&rt;</code>
+tags, and then generate with `hack/update-toc.sh`.
+-->
+
+<!-- toc -->
+- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
+- [Summary](#summary)
+- [Motivation](#motivation)
+  - [Goals](#goals)
+  - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+  - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+    - [Higher memory usage by the device_taint_eviction controller](#higher-memory-usage-by-the-device_taint_eviction-controller)
+    - [The number of pods that can share a ResourceClaim will not be unlimited](#the-number-of-pods-that-can-share-a-resourceclaim-will-not-be-unlimited)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+  - [Background](#background)
+    - [Deallocation](#deallocation)
+    - [Finding pods using a ResourceClaim](#finding-pods-using-a-resourceclaim)
+  - [Proposal](#proposal-1)
+    - [API](#api)
+    - [Implementation](#implementation)
+      - [Deallocation](#deallocation-1)
+      - [Finding pods using a ResourceClaim](#finding-pods-using-a-resourceclaim-1)
+  - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+      - [Prerequisite testing updates](#prerequisite-testing-updates)
+      - [Unit tests](#unit-tests)
+      - [Integration tests](#integration-tests)
+      - [e2e tests](#e2e-tests)
+  - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+    - [Alpha](#alpha)
+    - [Beta](#beta)
+    - [GA](#ga)
+  - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
+  - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
+- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
+  - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
+  - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
+  - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements)
+  - [Dependencies](#dependencies)
+  - [Scalability](#scalability)
+  - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting)
+- [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
+- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
+- [Alternatives](#alternatives)
+  - [Increase the size limit on the ReservedFor field](#increase-the-size-limit-on-the-reservedfor-field)
+  - [Relax validation without API changes](#relax-validation-without-api-changes)
+- [Infrastructure Needed (Optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
+<!-- /toc -->
+
+## Release Signoff Checklist
+
+<!--
+**ACTION REQUIRED:** In order to merge code into a release, there must be an
+issue in [kubernetes/enhancements] referencing this KEP and targeting a release
+milestone **before the [Enhancement Freeze](https://git.k8s.io/sig-release/releases)
+of the targeted release**.
+
+For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core
+Kubernetes—i.e., [kubernetes/kubernetes], we require the following Release
+Signoff checklist to be completed.
+
+Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These
+checklist items _must_ be updated for the enhancement to be released.
+-->
+
+Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*.
+
+- [x] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
+- [x] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
+- [x] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
+- [x] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors)
+  - [ ] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints)
+  - [ ] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) 
+  - [ ] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free
+- [ ] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
+  - [ ] (R) [all GA Endpoints](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1806) must be hit by [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) 
+- [x] (R) Production readiness review completed
+- [x] (R) Production readiness review approved
+- [x] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
+- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
+- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
+
+<!--
+**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
+-->
+
+[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
+[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
+[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes
+[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website
+
+## Summary
+
+One of the features of Dynamic Resource Allocation is that multiple pods can
+share a single ResourceClaim, which means they also share the allocated devices. This
+enables several important use-cases. However, currently the number
+of pods that can share a single ResourceClaim is limited to 256. We have concrete
+use-cases that require that thousands of pods share a single ResourceClaim. With this
+KEP, the hard limit on the number of pods will be removed.
+
+## Motivation
+
+Training workloads that uses TPUs can be very large, requiring over 9,000
+TPUs for a single training job. The number of TPUs for each node is usually 4, meaning
+that the job will run across more than 2,000 nodes. Due to topology constraints, TPU slices
+are usually modeled in DRA as multi-host devices, meaning that a single DRA device
+can represent thousands of TPUs. As a result, all pods running the workload will
+therefore share a single ResourceClaim. The current limit of 256 pods sharing a
+ResourceClaim is therefore too low.
+
+### Goals
+
+- Enable ResourceClaims to be shared by any number of pods.
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+
+## Proposal
+
+Rather than expecting the `ReservedFor` field to contain an exhaustive list of
+all pods using the ResourceClaim, we propose letting the controller managing
+a ResourceClaim specify the reference to the resource consuming the claim
+in the spec. This will then be used as the consumer of the ResourceClaim, removing
+the need for every pod in the workload to be listed. 
+
+Increasing the allowed number of pods in the list was considered, but rejected
+for two primary reasons:
+* The size of AI workloads are getting larger so it is hard to come up with a new
+  threshold
+* Having a list with thousands of entries is neither a good nor scalable solution.
+
+The `ReservedFor` list already accepts generic resource references, so this
+field doesn't need to be changed. However, we are proposing adding two new
+fields to the `ResourceClaim` type:
+* `spec.ReservedFor` which allows the creator of a `ResourceClaim` to specify in
+  the spec which resource is the consumer of the `ResourceClaim`. When the first pod
+  referencing the `ResourceClaim` is scheduled, the reference will be copied into
+  the `status.ReservedFor` list.
+* `status.allocation.ReservedForAnyPod` which will be set to `true` by the DRA
+  scheduler plugin at allocation time when the `spec.ReservedFor` field is copied
+  into the `status.ReservedFor` list. If `status.allocation.ReservedForAnyPod` is
+  set to `true`, the kubelet will skip the check that requires pods to be listed as
+  a consumer of the claim when starting the pod.
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+#### Higher memory usage by the device_taint_eviction controller
+The device_taint_eviction controller will need to keep an index of which pods are
+referenced from each ResourceClaim, so it can evict the correct pods when devices
+are tainted. This will require some additional memory.
+
+#### The number of pods that can share a ResourceClaim will not be unlimited
+Removing this limit does not mean that the number of pods that can share a ResourceClaim
+will be unlimited. As part of the
+[scale testing effort for DRA](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/131198),
+we will test the scalability of the number of pods sharing a ResourceClaim so we can
+provide guidance as to what is a safe number.
+
+## Design Details
+
+### Background
+
+The `ReservedFor` field on the `ResourceClaimStatus` is currently used for two purposes:
+
+#### Deallocation
+Devices are allocated to a `ResourceClaim` when the first pod referencing the claim is
+scheduled. Other pods can also share the `ResourceClaim` in which case they share the
+devices. Once no pods are consuming the claim, the devices should be deallocated to they
+can be allocted to other claims. The `ReservedFor` list is used to keep track of pods
+consuming a `ResourceClaim`. Pods are added to the list by the DRA scheduler plugin
+during scheduling and removed from the list by the resourceclaim controller when pods are
+deleted or finish running. An empty list means there are no current consumers of the claim
+and it can be deallocated.
+
+#### Finding pods using a ResourceClaim
+It is used by the DRA scheduler plugin, the kubelet, and the device_taint_eviction
+controller to find pods that are using the ResourceClaim:
+
+1. The kubelet uses this to make sure it only runs pods that where the claims have been allocated
+   to the pod. It can verify this by checking that the Pod is listed in the `ReservedFor` list.
+
+1. The DRA scheduler plugin uses the list to find claims that have zero or only
+   a single pod using it, and is therefore a candidate for deallocation in the `PostFilter` function.
+
+1. The device_taint_eviction controller uses the `ReservedFor` list to find the pods that need to be evicted
+   when one or more of the devices allocated to a ResourceClaim is tainted (and the ResourceClaim
+   does not have a toleration).
+
+So the solution needs to:
+* Give the resourceclaim controller a way to know when there are no more consumers of a ResourceClaim so
+  it can be deallocated.
+* Give controllers a way to list the pods consuming or referencing a ResourceClaim.
+
+### Proposal
+
+#### API
+
+The exact set of proposed API changes can be seen below (`...` is used in places where new fields
+are added to existing types):
+
+```go
+// ResourceClaimSpec defines what is being requested in a ResourceClaim and how to configure it.
+type ResourceClaimSpec struct {
+  ...
+
+  // ReservedFor specifies the resource that will be consuming the claim. If set, the
+  // reference will be copied into the status.ReservedFor list when the claim is allocated.
+  //
+  // When this field is set it is the responsibility of the entity that created the
+  // ResourceClaim to remove the reference from the status.ReservedFor list when there
+  // are no longer any pods consuming the claim.
+  //
+  // Most user-created ResourceClaims should not set this field. It is more typically
+  // used by ResourceClaims created and managed by controllers.
+  //
+  // +featureGate=DRAReservedForWorkloads
+  // +optional
+  ReservedFor *ResourceClaimConsumerReference
+}
+
+// AllocationResult contains attributes of an allocated resource.
+type AllocationResult struct {
+  ...
+
+  // ReservedForAnyPod specifies whether the ResourceClaim can be used by
+  // any pod referencing it. If set to true, the kubelet will not check whether
+  // the pod is listed in the staus.ReservedFor list before running the pod.
+  //
+  // +featureGate=DRAReservedForWorkloads
+  // +optional
+  ReservedForAnyPod *bool
+}
+```
+
+The `ResourceClaimConsumerReference` type already exists:
+
+```go
+// ResourceClaimConsumerReference contains enough information to let you
+// locate the consumer of a ResourceClaim. The user must be a resource in the same
+// namespace as the ResourceClaim.
+type ResourceClaimConsumerReference struct {
+  // APIGroup is the group for the resource being referenced. It is
+  // empty for the core API. This matches the group in the APIVersion
+  // that is used when creating the resources.
+  // +optional
+  APIGroup string
+  // Resource is the type of resource being referenced, for example "pods".
+  // +required
+  Resource string
+  // Name is the name of resource being referenced.
+  // +required
+  Name string
+  // UID identifies exactly one incarnation of the resource.
+  // +required
+  UID types.UID
+}
+```
+
+#### Implementation
+Whenever the scheduler (i.e. the DRA scheduler plugin) tries to schedule a pod that
+references a `ResourceClaim` with an empty `status.ReservedFor` list, it knows that this
+is the first pod that will be consuming the claim.
+
+If the `spec.ReservedFor` field in the ResourceClaim is not set, the scheduler will handle
+the `ResourceClaim` in the same way as now, and will add the `Pod` to the `ReservedFor` list
+if devices could be allocated for the claim. Any additional pods that reference the `ResourceClaim`
+will also be added to the list.
+
+If the `spec.ReservedFor` field is set, the scheduler will copy this reference to the
+`ReservedFor` list, rather than adding a reference to the `Pod`. It will also update the
+`status.allocation.ReservedForAnyPod` field to `true`. When any other pods referencing
+the `ResourceClaim` is scheduled and the scheduler sees a non-Pod reference in the `ReservedFor`
+list, it will not add a reference to the pod.
+
+##### Deallocation
+The resourceclaim controller will remove Pod references from the `ReservedFor` list just
+like it does now using the same logic. But for non-Pod references, it
+will be the responsibility of the controller/user that created the `ResourceClaim` to
+remove the reference to the non-Pod resource from the `ReservedFor` list when no pods
+are consuming the `ResourceClaim` and no new pods will be created that references
+the `ResourceClaim`.
+
+The resourceclaim controller will then discover that the `ReservedFor` list is empty
+and therefore know that it is safe to deallocate the `ResourceClaim`.
+
+This requires that the controller/user has permissions to update the status
+subresource of the `ResourceClaim`. The resourceclaim controller will also try to detect if
+the resource referenced in the `ReservedFor` list has been deleted from the cluster, but
+that requires that the controller has permissions to get or list resources of the type. If the
+resourceclaim controller is not able to check, it will just wait until the reference in
+the `ReservedFor` list is removed. The resourceclaim controller will not have a watch
+on the workload resource, so there is no guarantee that the controller will realize that
+the resource has been deleted. This is an extra check since it is the responsibility of
+the workload controller to update the claim.
+
+##### Finding pods using a ResourceClaim
+If the reference in the `ReservedFor` list is to a non-Pod resource, controllers can no longer
+use the list to find all pods consuming the `ResourceClaim`. Instead they will look up all
+pods referencing the `ResourceClaim`, which can be done by using a watch on Pods and maintaining
+an index of `ResourceClaim` to pods referencing it. This can be done using the informer cache.
+
+The list of pods referencing a `ResourceClaim` is not exactly the same as the list of pods
+consuming a `ResourceClaim` as specified in the `ReservedFor` list. References to pods in the
+`ReservedFor` list only contains pods that have been processed by the DRA scheduler plugin and
+is scheduled to use the `ResourceClaim`. It is possible to have pods that reference `ResourceClaim`,
+but haven't yet been scheduled. This distinction is important for some of the usages of the
+`ReservedFor` list described above:
+
+1. If the kubelet sees that the `status.allocation.ReservedForAnyPod` is set, it will skip
+   the check that the Pod is listed in the `ReservedFor` list and just run the pod.
+
+1. If the DRA scheduler plugin is trying to find candidates for deallocation in
+   the `PostFilter` function and sees a `ResourceClaim` with a non-Pod reference, it will not
+   attempt to deallocate. The plugin has no way to know how many pods are actually consuming
+   the `ResourceClaim` without the explicit list in the `ReservedFor` list and therefore it will
+   not be safe to deallocate.
+
+1. The device_taint_eviction controller will use the list of pods referencing the `ResourceClaim`
+   to determine the list of pods that needs to be evicted. In this situation, it is ok if the
+   list includes pods that haven't yet been scheduled.
+
+
+### Test Plan
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+The goal is to ensure that we don't accept enhancements with inadequate testing.
+
+All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
+expectations). Please adhere to the [Kubernetes testing guidelines][testing-guidelines]
+when drafting this test plan.
+
+[testing-guidelines]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md
+-->
+
+[ ] I/we understand the owners of the involved components may require updates to
+existing tests to make this code solid enough prior to committing the changes necessary
+to implement this enhancement.
+
+##### Prerequisite testing updates
+
+None
+
+##### Unit tests
+
+<!--
+Generated with:
+
+go test -cover ./pkg/scheduler/framework/plugins/dynamicresources ./pkg/controller/resourceclaim ./pkg/controller/devicetainteviction ./pkg/kubelet/cm/dra | sed -e 's/.*\(k8s.io[a-z/-]*\).*coverage: \(.*\) of statements/- `\1`: \2/' | sort
+
+-->
+
+
+- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/controller/devicetainteviction`: `06/05/2025` - 89.9%
+- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/controller/resourceclaim`: `06/05/2025` - 74.2%
+- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/kubelet/cm/dra`: `06/05/2025` - 79.4%
+- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/scheduler/framework/plugins/dynamicresources`: `06/05/2025` - 79.3%
+
+##### Integration tests
+
+Scheduler perf tests will be added to assess the performance impact of this change.
+
+##### e2e tests
+
+Additional e2e tests will be added to verify the behavior added in this KEP.
+
+### Graduation Criteria
+
+#### Alpha
+
+- Feature implemented behind a feature flag
+- Initial e2e tests completed and enabled
+
+#### Beta
+
+- Gather feedback from developers and surveys
+- Additional tests are in Testgrid and linked in KEP
+- Performance impact of the feature has been measured and found to be acceptable
+- More rigorous forms of testing—e.g., downgrade tests and scalability tests
+- All functionality completed
+- All security enforcement completed
+- All monitoring requirements completed
+- All testing requirements completed
+- All known pre-release issues and gaps resolved
+- Revisit whether the responsibility of removing the workload resource reference from
+  the `ReservedFor` list should be with the workload controller (as proposed in this design)
+  or be handled by the resourceclaim controller.
+
+#### GA
+
+- Allowing time for feedback
+- All issues and gaps identified as feedback during beta are resolved
+- [conformance tests]
+
+[conformance tests]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md
+
+
+### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
+
+The feature will no longer work if downgrading to a release without support for it.
+The API server will no longer accept the new fields and the other components will
+not know what to do with them. So the result is that the `ReservedFor` list will only
+have references to pod resources like today.
+
+Any ResourceClaims that have already been allocated when the feature was active will
+have non-pod references in the `ReservedFor` list after a downgrade, but the controllers
+will not know how to handle it. There are two problems that will arise as a result of
+this:
+- The workload controller will also have been downgraded if it is in-tree, meaning that
+  it will not remove the reference to workload resource from the `ReservedFor` list, thus
+  leading to a situation where the claim will never be deallocated.
+- For new pods that gets scheduled, the scheduler will add pod references in the
+  `ReservedFor` list, despite there being a non-pod reference here. So it ends up with
+  both pod and non-pod references in the list. We can manage both pod and non-pod
+  references in the list by letting the workload controllers add the non-pod reference
+  even if it sees pod references and making sure that the resourceclaim controller removes
+  pod references even if there are non-pod references in the list. For deallocation, it is
+  only safe when no pods are consuming the claim, so both workload and pod reference should
+  be removed once that is true.
+
+We will also provide explicit recommendations for how users can manage downgrades or
+disabling this feature. This means manually updating the references in the `ReservedFor` list
+to be pods rather than the reference to workload resources. We don't plan on providing
+automation for this.
+
+### Version Skew Strategy
+
+If the kubelet is on a version that doesn't support the feature but the rest of the
+components are, workloads will be scheduled, but the kubelet will refuse to run it
+since it will still check whether the `Pod` is references in the `ReservedFor` list.
+
+If the API server is on a version that supports the feature, but the scheduler
+is not, the scheduler will not know about the new fields added, so it will
+put the reference to the `Pod` in the `ReservedFor` list rather than the reference
+in the `spec.ReservedFor` list. It will do this even if there is already a non-pod
+reference in the `spec.ReservedFor` list. This leads to the challenge described
+in the previous section.
+
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+<!--
+
+Production readiness reviews are intended to ensure that features merging into
+Kubernetes are observable, scalable and supportable; can be safely operated in
+production environments, and can be disabled or rolled back in the event they
+cause increased failures in production. See more in the PRR KEP at
+https://git.k8s.io/enhancements/keps/sig-architecture/1194-prod-readiness.
+
+The production readiness review questionnaire must be completed and approved
+for the KEP to move to `implementable` status and be included in the release.
+
+In some cases, the questions below should also have answers in `kep.yaml`. This
+is to enable automation to verify the presence of the review, and to reduce review
+burden and latency.
+
+The KEP must have a approver from the
+[`prod-readiness-approvers`](http://git.k8s.io/enhancements/OWNERS_ALIASES)
+team. Please reach out on the
+[#prod-readiness](https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CPNHUMN74) channel if
+you need any help or guidance.
+-->
+
+### Feature Enablement and Rollback
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting alpha to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?
+
+<!--
+Pick one of these and delete the rest.
+
+Documentation is available on [feature gate lifecycle] and expectations, as
+well as the [existing list] of feature gates.
+
+[feature gate lifecycle]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md
+[existing list]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/feature-gates/
+-->
+
+- [x] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+  - Feature gate name: DRAReservedForWorkloads
+  - Components depending on the feature gate:
+    - kube-apiserver
+    - kube-scheduler
+    - kube-controller-manager
+    - kubelet
+
+###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
+
+No
+
+###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)?
+
+Applications that were already running will continue to run. But if a pod have to be
+re-admitted by a kubelet where the feature has been disabled, it will not be able to, since
+the kubelet will not find a reference to the pod in the `ReservedFor` list.
+
+The feature will also be disabled for in-tree workload controllers, meaning that they will
+not remove the reference to the workload resource from the `ReservedFor` list. This means the list will never
+be empty and the resourceclaim controller will never deallocate the claim.
+
+###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
+
+It will take affect again and will impact how the `ReservedFor` field is used during allocation
+and deallocation. Since this scenario allows a ResourceClaim with the `spec.ReservedFor` field
+to be set and then have the scheduler populate the `ReservedFor` list with pods when the feature
+is disabled, we will end up in a situation where the `ReservedFor` list can contain both non-pod
+and pod references. We need to make sure all components can handle that.
+
+###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?
+
+This will be covered through unit tests for the apiserver, scheduler, resourceclaim controller and
+kubelet.
+
+### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can a rollout or rollback fail? Can it impact already running workloads?
+
+<!--
+Try to be as paranoid as possible - e.g., what if some components will restart
+mid-rollout?
+
+Be sure to consider highly-available clusters, where, for example,
+feature flags will be enabled on some API servers and not others during the
+rollout. Similarly, consider large clusters and how enablement/disablement
+will rollout across nodes.
+-->
+
+###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?
+
+<!--
+What signals should users be paying attention to when the feature is young
+that might indicate a serious problem?
+-->
+
+###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?
+
+<!--
+Describe manual testing that was done and the outcomes.
+Longer term, we may want to require automated upgrade/rollback tests, but we
+are missing a bunch of machinery and tooling and can't do that now.
+-->
+
+###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?
+
+<!--
+Even if applying deprecation policies, they may still surprise some users.
+-->
+
+### Monitoring Requirements
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+
+###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?
+
+<!--
+Ideally, this should be a metric. Operations against the Kubernetes API (e.g.,
+checking if there are objects with field X set) may be a last resort. Avoid
+logs or events for this purpose.
+-->
+
+###### How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance?
+
+<!--
+For instance, if this is a pod-related feature, it should be possible to determine if the feature is functioning properly
+for each individual pod.
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+Please describe all items visible to end users below with sufficient detail so that they can verify correct enablement
+and operation of this feature.
+Recall that end users cannot usually observe component logs or access metrics.
+-->
+
+- [ ] Events
+  - Event Reason: 
+- [ ] API .status
+  - Condition name: 
+  - Other field: 
+- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  - Details:
+
+###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the enhancement?
+
+<!--
+This is your opportunity to define what "normal" quality of service looks like
+for a feature.
+
+It's impossible to provide comprehensive guidance, but at the very
+high level (needs more precise definitions) those may be things like:
+  - per-day percentage of API calls finishing with 5XX errors <= 1%
+  - 99% percentile over day of absolute value from (job creation time minus expected
+    job creation time) for cron job <= 10%
+  - 99.9% of /health requests per day finish with 200 code
+
+These goals will help you determine what you need to measure (SLIs) in the next
+question.
+-->
+
+###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?
+
+<!--
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+-->
+
+- [ ] Metrics
+  - Metric name:
+  - [Optional] Aggregation method:
+  - Components exposing the metric:
+- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  - Details:
+
+###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?
+
+<!--
+Describe the metrics themselves and the reasons why they weren't added (e.g., cost,
+implementation difficulties, etc.).
+-->
+
+### Dependencies
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?
+
+<!--
+Think about both cluster-level services (e.g. metrics-server) as well
+as node-level agents (e.g. specific version of CRI). Focus on external or
+optional services that are needed. For example, if this feature depends on
+a cloud provider API, or upon an external software-defined storage or network
+control plane.
+
+For each of these, fill in the following—thinking about running existing user workloads
+and creating new ones, as well as about cluster-level services (e.g. DNS):
+  - [Dependency name]
+    - Usage description:
+      - Impact of its outage on the feature:
+      - Impact of its degraded performance or high-error rates on the feature:
+-->
+
+### Scalability
+
+<!--
+For alpha, this section is encouraged: reviewers should consider these questions
+and attempt to answer them.
+
+For beta, this section is required: reviewers must answer these questions.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?
+
+It does require that:
+- The device_taint_eviction controller watches Pods 
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?
+
+No
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
+
+No
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?
+
+Yes and no. We are adding two new fields to the ResourceClaim type, but neither are of a collection type
+so they should have limited impact on the total size of the objects. However, this feature means that
+we no longer need to keep a complete list of all pods using a ResourceClaim, which can significantly
+reduce the size of ResourceClaim objects shared by many pods.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?
+
+No
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?
+
+It might require some additional memory usage in the resourceclaim controller since it will need to keep an index
+of ResourceClaim to Pods.
+
+###### Can enabling / using this feature result in resource exhaustion of some node resources (PIDs, sockets, inodes, etc.)?
+
+No
+
+### Troubleshooting
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+
+The Troubleshooting section currently serves the `Playbook` role. We may consider
+splitting it into a dedicated `Playbook` document (potentially with some monitoring
+details). For now, we leave it here.
+-->
+
+###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?
+
+###### What are other known failure modes?
+
+<!--
+For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below template:
+  - [Failure mode brief description]
+    - Detection: How can it be detected via metrics? Stated another way:
+      how can an operator troubleshoot without logging into a master or worker node?
+    - Mitigations: What can be done to stop the bleeding, especially for already
+      running user workloads?
+    - Diagnostics: What are the useful log messages and their required logging
+      levels that could help debug the issue?
+      Not required until feature graduated to beta.
+    - Testing: Are there any tests for failure mode? If not, describe why.
+-->
+
+###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
+
+## Implementation History
+
+- 1.34: first KEP revision
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+This complicates the allocation and deallocation logic somewhat as there will be two
+separate ways to manage the allocation and deallocation process for ResourceClaims.
+
+It also leads to additional work for the device_taint_eviction controller since it needs
+to maintain an index to find all pods using a ResourceClaim rather than just looking at
+the list of pods in the `ReservedFor` list.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+### Increase the size limit on the ReservedFor field
+The simplest solution here would be to just increase the size limit on the
+`ReservedFor` field to a larger number. But having a large list of pod references
+is not a good way to handle it and could at least in theory run into the size limit
+of Kubernetes resources. Also, we would need to have some limit on the size, and whatever
+number we choose it might still be too small for the largest workloads.
+
+### Relax validation without API changes
+The current proposal adds explicit support for non-pod references in the `ReservedFor` list
+by adding the new `spec. An alternative is to let the workload controller be responsible for
+not only removing the reference in the `ReservedFor` list when there are no longer any pods
+consuming the `ResourceClaim`, but also adding the reference after creating the `ResourceClaim`.
+This will require that the validation is relaxed to allow entries in the `ReservedFor` list
+without any allocation. This would also require that the Kubelet checks for non-Pod references
+in the `ReservedFor` list and skips the check before running pods if it finds any.
+
+This isn't all that different than the proposed solution, but the solution described above
+was considered superior as it makes the new feature more explicit.
+
+## Infrastructure Needed (Optional)
+
+<!--
+Use this section if you need things from the project/SIG. Examples include a
+new subproject, repos requested, or GitHub details. Listing these here allows a
+SIG to get the process for these resources started right away.
+-->
diff --git a/keps/sig-scheduling/5194-reserved-for-workloads/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-scheduling/5194-reserved-for-workloads/kep.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..d9ff2a245ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-scheduling/5194-reserved-for-workloads/kep.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+title: DRA ReservedFor Workloads
+kep-number: 5194
+authors:
+  - "@mortent"
+owning-sig: sig-scheduling
+participating-sigs:
+  - sig-autoscaling
+status: implementable
+creation-date: 2025-05-29
+reviewers:
+  - "@pohly"
+  - "@johnbelamaric"
+approvers:
+  - "@dom4ha" # SIG-Scheduling
+  - "@jackfrancis" # SIG-Autoscaling
+  - "@thockin" # API Review
+
+see-also:
+  - "/keps/sig-node/4381-dra-structured-parameters"
+
+# The target maturity stage in the current dev cycle for this KEP.
+# If the purpose of this KEP is to deprecate a user-visible feature
+# and a Deprecated feature gates are added, they should be deprecated|disabled|removed.
+stage: alpha
+
+# The most recent milestone for which work toward delivery of this KEP has been
+# done. This can be the current (upcoming) milestone, if it is being actively
+# worked on.
+latest-milestone: "v1.34"
+
+# The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage.
+milestone:
+  alpha: "v1.34"
+  beta: "v1.35"
+  stable: "v1.36"
+
+# The following PRR answers are required at alpha release
+# List the feature gate name and the components for which it must be enabled
+feature-gates:
+  - name: DRAReservedForWorkloads
+    components:
+      - kube-apiserver
+      - kube-scheduler
+      - kube-controller-manager
+      - kubelet
+disable-supported: true
+
+# The following PRR answers are required at beta release
+metrics:
+  #- my_feature_metric