Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

CNF-13193: Update NTO Hugepages size validation #1086

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

CNF-13193: Update NTO Hugepages size validation #1086

wants to merge 3 commits into from
+541 −26

Conversation

fontivan
Copy link
Contributor

@fontivan fontivan commented Jun 19, 2024 •
edited
Loading

  • Include valid sizes for both x86 and aarch64 in the validation check
  • Included notes for aarch64 where each kernel page size includes only a single valid hugepage size
  • After discusion on Slack I have also added some additional validations:
    -- Verify all nodes in the list have the same cpu architecture
    -- Verify all nodes in the list have the same cpu capacity
    -- Verify that the selected hugepage size is valid for the cpu architecture

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. label Jun 19, 2024
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 19, 2024 •
edited by openshift-ci bot
Loading

@fontivan: This pull request references CNF-13193 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.17.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

  • Include valid sizes for both x86 and aarch64 in the validation check
  • Included notes for aarch64 where each kernel page size includes only a single valid hugepage size

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jun 19, 2024
@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 19, 2024

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 19, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: fontivan
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign ffromani for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 21, 2024 •
edited by openshift-ci bot
Loading

@fontivan: This pull request references CNF-13193 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

  • Include valid sizes for both x86 and aarch64 in the validation check
  • Included notes for aarch64 where each kernel page size includes only a single valid hugepage size
  • After discusion on Slack I have also added some additional validations:
    -- Verify all nodes in the list have the same cpu architecture
    -- Verify all nodes in the list have the same cpu capacity
    -- Verify that the selected hugepage size is valid for the cpu architecture

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@MarSik
Copy link
Contributor

MarSik commented Jun 26, 2024

I like the direction, we should make sure we are not adding too many repeated API server requests though (too many node listings for example).

bartwensley
bartwensley reviewed Jun 26, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@bartwensley bartwensley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good so far

pkg/apis/performanceprofile/v2/performanceprofile_validation.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/apis/performanceprofile/v2/performanceprofile_validation.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/apis/performanceprofile/v2/performanceprofile_validation.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/apis/performanceprofile/v2/performanceprofile_validation.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@fontivan fontivan force-pushed the sskeard/cnf-13193-update-huge-pages-validation branch from 79447eb to 481fee5 Compare July 2, 2024 17:35
@fontivan fontivan force-pushed the sskeard/cnf-13193-update-huge-pages-validation branch from 481fee5 to 82cb4f4 Compare July 9, 2024 13:29
@fontivan fontivan force-pushed the sskeard/cnf-13193-update-huge-pages-validation branch 2 times, most recently from cf9e1ed to ef5883b Compare August 20, 2024 12:32
@fontivan fontivan marked this pull request as ready for review August 20, 2024 12:33
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Aug 20, 2024
@fontivan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test e2e-gcp-pao

@fontivan fontivan force-pushed the sskeard/cnf-13193-update-huge-pages-validation branch from 32b9049 to b70eeaf Compare August 21, 2024 12:32
@fontivan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

1 similar comment
@fontivan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@fontivan fontivan force-pushed the sskeard/cnf-13193-update-huge-pages-validation branch from b70eeaf to f6ee429 Compare August 26, 2024 18:29
@yanirq
Copy link
Contributor

yanirq commented Sep 1, 2024

/retest

@fontivan fontivan force-pushed the sskeard/cnf-13193-update-huge-pages-validation branch from f6ee429 to f18d396 Compare September 4, 2024 18:32
@fontivan
Copy link
Contributor Author

fontivan commented Sep 5, 2024

/test e2e-gcp-pao

@fontivan fontivan force-pushed the sskeard/cnf-13193-update-huge-pages-validation branch 2 times, most recently from 3677c6f to 2ae47bd Compare September 9, 2024 13:28
@fontivan
Copy link
Contributor Author

fontivan commented Sep 9, 2024

/retest

@fontivan
CNF-13193: Update NTO Hugepages size validation
5500c3f 
- Include valid sizes for both x86 and aarch64 validation check
- Included notes for aarch64 where each kernel page sizes includes only a single valid hugepage size
- Fetch a node list once and use it for multiple validation checks
- Ensure node list is valid before using it
- Clarify preconditions on GetArchitecture helper function
- Use separate methods for checking architecture and cpu capacity
- Add additional validation to enforce that all nodes that match the selector have the same cpu capacity and architecture
- Add additional validation to enforce that the specified hugepage size is valid for the architecture in use
@fontivan
CNF-13193: Update test cases for hugepages changes
504dbb6 
- Update various tests to include architecture specific details where necessary
- Add a variety of new tests to cover the newly added code
@fontivan
CNF-13193: Node selector matching zero nodes is a valid use case
7d3b6bc 
- It is allowed for a node selector to match zero nodes, this should not return an error
- Nodes can be added after the profile is created
- If no nodes are currently present it does limit the validation we can perform (No architecture validation without nodes present)
- Update profile validation and associated test cases with these changes
@fontivan fontivan force-pushed the sskeard/cnf-13193-update-huge-pages-validation branch from 2ae47bd to 7d3b6bc Compare September 17, 2024 17:03
@fontivan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

1 similar comment
@fontivan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 19, 2024

@fontivan: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-pao 7d3b6bc link true /test e2e-gcp-pao

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@MarSik MarSik MarSik left review comments

@bartwensley bartwensley bartwensley left review comments

@ffromani ffromani ffromani left review comments

@dagrayvid dagrayvid Awaiting requested review from dagrayvid

@swatisehgal swatisehgal Awaiting requested review from swatisehgal

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@fontivan @openshift-ci-robot @MarSik @yanirq @bartwensley @ffromani