feat: Add option for CPU manager policy

[m10ev]

References:

• https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/google/latest/docs/resources/container_cluster#kubelet_config
• Upstream support for Kubelet and Linux Node configurations in GKE hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#7060

[m10ev]

Doesn't pass make docker_test_lint yet, still working on it.

[comment-bot-dev]

Thanks for the PR! 🚀
✅ Lint checks have passed.

[bharathkkb]

Thanks for the PR @m10ev

[bharathkkb]

Does this cause nodes to be cordoned and drained when introducing kubelet_config with a default of none?
If that is the case, it may make sense to make this a dynamic block that is only created if kubelet_config is explicitly set.

[flecno]

Yes it will replace the nodes. Recommend to use dynamic block

[flecno]

somethink like this should work

    dynamic "kubelet_config" {
      for_each = contains(keys(each.value), "cpu_manager_policy") ? [1] : []
      content {
        cpu_manager_policy = lookup(each.value, "cpu_manager_policy")
      }
    }

[flecno]

This is a good example to adapt here to be more consistent (it's still a google-beta feature too according to the docs right?):

terraform-google-kubernetes-engine/autogen/main/cluster.tf.tmpl

Line 65 in 5ba88a6

{% if beta_cluster %}

[bharathkkb]

@flecno that approach lgtm. Regarding beta-cluster gating, this is already within the conditional.

terraform-google-kubernetes-engine/autogen/main/cluster.tf.tmpl

Line 513 in 5ba88a6

{% if beta_cluster %}

[m10ev]

Not sure if this should be wrapped in a lookup because I don't know how maps work yet. Accessing a non-existent map key with . in the console seemed to be an error but the example I was iterating on seemed to pass the checks?

[bharathkkb]

Something like this should work
#749 (comment)

[m10ev]

Thanks for bearing with me while I learn tf :D

[flecno]

you are welcome. 🙂
But I know, using this dynamic block like this feels a little bit ugly at the beginning but you will see later why and how you want to avoid breaking changes. And this is a change where terraform will not inform you that it leads to a recreation of the whole node-pool instances.

[bharathkkb]

LGTM