Ignore EndpointSlices that are marked for deletion#109624
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Sanskar Jaiswal <jaiswalsanskar078@gmail.com>
|
Please note that we're already in Test Freeze for the |
|
@aryan9600: This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The DetailsInstructions 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/test-infra repository. |
|
Hi @aryan9600. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions 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/test-infra repository. |
|
/sig network |
|
/assign @robscott |
robscott
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the work on this @aryan9600!
| providedSlices[endpointSlice.UID] = endpointSlice.Generation | ||
| g, ok := gfs[endpointSlice.UID] | ||
| if ok && (g == deletionExpected || g > endpointSlice.Generation) { | ||
| if endpointSlice.DeletionTimestamp != nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this just pushes the problem further down. This will allow the sync to continue which is good, but we also need a change in the reconciler (or similar area) to ensure that the reconcile logic also ignores EndpointSlices that are terminating, otherwise we'll be in a worse place than when we started.
|
/ok-to-test |
|
/cc |
ac8d9f6 to
3e5ef5a
Compare
f28b044 to
b473a9e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
forget my previous comment, this is right
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@robscott I can't remember all the details now of the tracker, is there anything else we should do in the endpointSliceTracker?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Commenting for future us - this is right, explained by https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/109624/files#r860592618.
robscott
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @aryan9600! This change LGTM, just a couple tiny nits but will approve after those are addressed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be helpful to explain which action we're actually expecting here. I'm assuming it's just a read from the controller?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes sure. It's not a read, it's an update where the non-terminating endpointslice's trigger time annotation is removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is more complicated, but it would be nice to have some kind of test that actually verified the precise contents of the remaining list to be sure there's nothing funny happening like the objects being emptied out. (I know that's impossible with the current code, just would likely slightly more thorough tests here).
Signed-off-by: Sanskar Jaiswal <jaiswalsanskar078@gmail.com>
b473a9e to
4314e58
Compare
|
Thanks @aryan9600! I think this bug fix is worth cherry picking back to previous versions as well - I can approve if you create the cherry picks. /lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: aryan9600, robscott The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/retest-required |
…09624-upstream-release-1.24 Automated cherry pick of #109624: Ignore EndpointSlices that are already marked for deletion
…09624-upstream-release-1.22 Automated cherry pick of #109624: Ignore EndpointSlices that are already marked for deletion
…09624-upstream-release-1.23 Automated cherry pick of #109624: Ignore EndpointSlices that are already marked for deletion
…/fix-endpointslice-deletion Ignore EndpointSlices that are marked for deletion Signed-off-by: Damien Grisonnet <dgrisonn@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sanskar Jaiswal jaiswalsanskar078@gmail.com
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
Ignores EndpointSlices that have been marked for deletion, to prevent the controller from getting stuck while calculating stale slices for a service.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #108779
Special notes for your reviewer:
Related issue: #108267
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: