add device data in resourceclaim #128
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Swati Gupta <[email protected]>
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
|
Welcome @guptaNswati! |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: guptaNswati 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/M
|
cc @nojnhuh for review. |
| return resultConfigs, nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s *DeviceState) buildDeviceStatus(res *resourceapi.DeviceRequestAllocationResult) *resourceapply.AllocatedDeviceStatusApplyConfiguration { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does res need to be a pointer, or can we save the extra syntax and theoretical nil-dereference by making this a plain value? Not a blocking issue, but I may propose refactoring this when I integrate with #129.
|
|
||
| func (s *DeviceState) buildDeviceStatus(res *resourceapi.DeviceRequestAllocationResult) *resourceapply.AllocatedDeviceStatusApplyConfiguration { | ||
| dn := res.Device | ||
| deviceInfo := make(map[string]interface{}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: could we make this more strongly typed?
| deviceInfo := make(map[string]interface{}) | |
| deviceInfo := make(map[string]resourceapi.DeviceAttribute) |
| WithDriver(res.Driver). | ||
| WithPool(res.Pool). | ||
| WithConditions(cond). | ||
| WithData(data) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For my own understanding, who or what generally consumes this data?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To me, this seems useful for monitoring and debugging when admin want to know pod to gpu mapping, which GPU is being used by a particular pod. right now this info is not readily available.
| } | ||
| cond := metav1apply.Condition(). | ||
| WithType("Ready"). | ||
| WithStatus(metav1.ConditionTrue). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does the NVIDIA driver also only set this condition at the time the claim is allocated, or can it ever change after that? If it can change, I think the example driver should model how to update that. Even if it stays constant, scaffolding out how that can work with something that says "this is where the latest status is determined" would be helpful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so for nvidia-dra-driver i was looking to use this as part of GPU health check status update. But we dint really see any value of showing this information as part of an allocated claim as it does not really change. Its more complex to show any real updates on an allocated claim.
|
|
||
| opts := metav1.ApplyOptions{FieldManager: consts.DriverName, Force: true} | ||
|
|
||
| _, err := s.config.coreclient.ResourceV1().ResourceClaims(ns).ApplyStatus(ctx, claim, opts) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there some lightweight verification we can add to the e2e tests? At least something to verify that something like the condition or one of the attributes is set on even one of the examples would make sure this doesn't totally break later.
| if d.Attributes != nil { | ||
| attributes := d.Attributes | ||
|
|
||
| if uuid, ok := attributes["uuid"]; ok { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: indexing into a nil map doesn't panic, so we can skip this check. I at least don't see any issues skipping it if I remove all of the attributes from the devices and allocate them.
| if d.Attributes != nil { | |
| attributes := d.Attributes | |
| if uuid, ok := attributes["uuid"]; ok { | |
| if uuid, ok := d.Attributes["uuid"]; ok { |
3 participants
Addressing #101 to add device attributes to demonstrate how to do resourceclaim status update.
Test run