-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
Direct exec() the kubelet instead of launching in proc #16270
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.
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
Direct exec() the kubelet instead of launching in proc #16270
Conversation
@smarterclayton: Your pull request title starts with "WIP", so the do-not-merge/work-in-progress label will be added. This label will ensure that your pull request will not be merged. Remove the prefix from your pull request title to trigger the removal of the label and allow for your pull request to be merged. 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/test-infra repository. |
@deads2k here's the payoff |
@knobunc re our discussion today after this change |
please open the upstream upstream |
Yeah I still need to write a roundtripper for flags that catches this and a
fuzzed
On Sep 11, 2017, at 1:45 PM, David Eads <[email protected]> wrote:
please open the upstream upstream
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#16270 (comment)>,
or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABG_pyX9bw6ZeS34uZT_auvkNS6h-7nVks5shXGvgaJpZM4PSMiL>
.
|
9cb4860
to
67184e7
Compare
67184e7
to
e7bff7e
Compare
Note that this PR also exposes --v and --vmodule silently so that we are command line compatible with the upstreams. |
Allows compatibility with Kubernetes invocation directly
LowDisk threshold is slated for removal in 1.8 and CFS quota is on by default now.
If the only component running on the node is the kubelet, exec with the necessary args instead of running the code in the current process.
e7bff7e
to
45c33d5
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This lgtm, but I'd like to wait for upstream approval on the PR before merging this one.
Upstream is approved. |
@openshift/sig-platform-inftrastructure @openshift/sig-user-interface anyone have any concerns about adding -v and -vmodule back in (not in completions or output)? |
I'm not hearing more comments? |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: smarterclayton, soltysh The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:
You can indicate your approval by writing |
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 16480, 16486, 16270, 16128, 16489) |
If only the kubelet is launched by the node process, execve(2) instead of launching in process. Requires some corrections to the upstream flags to support round tripping. Support
OPENSHIFT_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_KUBELET=<path>
to allow a kubelet binary that is not exactly equivalent (symlink or hardlink) to the current file. If the kubelet binary cannot be found, print a warning and continue with the in-proc flow (so we don't break older users without the kubelet symlink).To start:
Networking can be run separately with:
Did a quick sanity test against this, didn't hit any obvious issues.
Builds off #16269