Fix: device allocation missing containers with no device request - #1299
Conversation
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @FouoF, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request resolves a bug in the scheduler's device allocation mechanism. Previously, the system could incorrectly handle pods containing containers that do not explicitly request devices, potentially leading to misaligned device assignments. The updated logic ensures that all containers within a pod are properly accounted for in the device allocation map, regardless of their device requirements, thereby preventing allocation errors. A new comprehensive test case has been added to validate the correctness of this fix.
Highlights
- Device Allocation Bug Fix: Corrects an issue in the scheduler's "calcScore" function where containers without explicit device requests were not properly represented in the "score.Devices" map, leading to potential allocation discrepancies.
- Scheduler Logic Enhancement: The "pkg/scheduler/score.go" file has been updated to ensure that "score.Devices" is consistently populated with empty "ContainerDevices" for containers that do not request devices, maintaining correct indexing and preventing gaps in the allocation structure.
- New Test Case: A new test has been added to "pkg/scheduler/score_test.go" specifically designed to verify the fix. This test case simulates a scenario where a pod has multiple containers, and only a later container requests a device, ensuring the preceding non-device-requesting containers are correctly handled.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request fixes an issue where device allocation was failing for pods with containers that don't request any devices. The approach is sound and the new test case correctly validates the fix for the single-device-type scenario. However, the implementation introduces a new bug when a pod requests multiple types of devices across different containers. My review includes suggestions to fix this new issue by removing the problematic deviceType variable and refactoring the logic to correctly handle all device types.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Signed-off-by: Jifei Wang <jifei.wang@dynamia.ai>
|
CC @ouyangluwei163 This pr does fix the device allocation in score. As for device plugin, I plan to open another pr, it may include unit tests for |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: archlitchi, FouoF 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 |
2 participants
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1050
Special notes for your reviewer:
Add a new test case that old code can't pass and the new code can pass.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: