-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
🐛 Fix e2e test for dockermachinePool #11440
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -46,12 +46,12 @@ import ( | |
// reconcileDockerContainers manages the Docker containers for a MachinePool such that it | ||
// - Ensures the number of up-to-date Docker containers is equal to the MachinePool's desired replica count. | ||
// - Does not delete any containers as that must be triggered in reconcileDockerMachines to ensure node cordon/drain. | ||
// - Create the DockerMachine CR after creating the container. | ||
// | ||
// Providers should similarly create their infrastructure instances and reconcile any additional logic. | ||
func (r *DockerMachinePoolReconciler) reconcileDockerContainers(ctx context.Context, cluster *clusterv1.Cluster, machinePool *expv1.MachinePool, dockerMachinePool *infraexpv1.DockerMachinePool) error { | ||
log := ctrl.LoggerFrom(ctx) | ||
|
||
log.V(2).Info("Reconciling Docker containers", "DockerMachinePool", klog.KObj(dockerMachinePool)) | ||
log.Info("Reconciling Docker containers", "DockerMachinePool", klog.KObj(dockerMachinePool)) | ||
|
||
labelFilters := map[string]string{dockerMachinePoolLabel: dockerMachinePool.Name} | ||
|
||
|
@@ -63,11 +63,17 @@ func (r *DockerMachinePoolReconciler) reconcileDockerContainers(ctx context.Cont | |
matchingMachineCount := len(machinesMatchingInfrastructureSpec(ctx, machines, machinePool, dockerMachinePool)) | ||
numToCreate := int(*machinePool.Spec.Replicas) - matchingMachineCount | ||
for range numToCreate { | ||
log.V(2).Info("Creating a new Docker container for machinePool", "MachinePool", klog.KObj(machinePool)) | ||
log.Info("Creating a new Docker container for machinePool", "MachinePool", klog.KObj(machinePool)) | ||
name := fmt.Sprintf("worker-%s", util.RandomString(6)) | ||
if err := createDockerContainer(ctx, name, cluster, machinePool, dockerMachinePool); err != nil { | ||
return errors.Wrap(err, "failed to create a new docker machine") | ||
} | ||
|
||
log.Info("Creating a new DockerMachine for dockerMachinePool", "DockerMachinePool", klog.KObj(dockerMachinePool)) | ||
dockerMachine := computeDesiredDockerMachine(name, cluster, machinePool, dockerMachinePool, nil) | ||
if err := ssa.Patch(ctx, r.Client, dockerMachinePoolControllerName, dockerMachine); err != nil { | ||
return errors.Wrap(err, "failed to create a new docker machine") | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
return nil | ||
|
@@ -107,15 +113,14 @@ func createDockerContainer(ctx context.Context, name string, cluster *clusterv1. | |
|
||
// reconcileDockerMachines creates and deletes DockerMachines to match the MachinePool's desired number of replicas and infrastructure spec. | ||
// It is responsible for | ||
// - Ensuring each Docker container has an associated DockerMachine by creating one if it doesn't already exist. | ||
// - Ensuring that deletion for Docker container happens by calling delete on the associated Machine so that the node is cordoned/drained and the infrastructure is cleaned up. | ||
// - Deleting DockerMachines referencing a container whose Kubernetes version or custom image no longer matches the spec. | ||
// - Deleting DockerMachines that correspond to a deleted/non-existent Docker container. | ||
// - Deleting DockerMachines when scaling down such that DockerMachines whose owner Machine has the clusterv1.DeleteMachineAnnotation is given priority. | ||
func (r *DockerMachinePoolReconciler) reconcileDockerMachines(ctx context.Context, cluster *clusterv1.Cluster, machinePool *expv1.MachinePool, dockerMachinePool *infraexpv1.DockerMachinePool) error { | ||
log := ctrl.LoggerFrom(ctx) | ||
|
||
log.V(2).Info("Reconciling DockerMachines", "DockerMachinePool", klog.KObj(dockerMachinePool)) | ||
log.Info("Reconciling DockerMachines", "DockerMachinePool", klog.KObj(dockerMachinePool)) | ||
|
||
dockerMachineList, err := getDockerMachines(ctx, r.Client, *cluster, *machinePool, *dockerMachinePool) | ||
if err != nil { | ||
|
@@ -140,36 +145,13 @@ func (r *DockerMachinePoolReconciler) reconcileDockerMachines(ctx context.Contex | |
} | ||
|
||
// Step 1: | ||
// Create a DockerMachine for each Docker container so we surface the information to the user. Use the same name as the Docker container for the Docker Machine for ease of lookup. | ||
// Providers should iterate through their infrastructure instances and ensure that each instance has a corresponding InfraMachine. | ||
for _, machine := range externalMachines { | ||
if existingMachine, ok := dockerMachineMap[machine.Name()]; ok { | ||
log.V(2).Info("Patching existing DockerMachine", "DockerMachine", klog.KObj(&existingMachine)) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Are we losing this entire branch? I don't follow how this change solves the problem There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I moved the creation of the DockerMachine with the Container creation here to avoid the loop for creating DockerMachine CR based on the previously created container. logs ex; the dockerMachine is failed to patch as it is deleted , next log is the dockerMachine created (I think dockerMachinePool go to delete same time the patch is happening to create missing dockerMachine) and then we stuck waiting for the machine get created but never happen as the dockermachinePool and machinePool are gone.
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
have you considered to prevent creation of new machines in this func when the DockerMachinePool has a deletion timestamp? (it should probably be an if around L155-L161) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Well, the code logic shouldn't allow this to happen (it should go through the delete reconcile). In any case, tying the creation of dockerMachine after the container creation is better implementation to avoid such random execution to happen. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is confusing me a little bit (and my lack of knowledge in MP doesn't help) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Sorry for confusion, this changes fix the race condition. here during reconcile the dockerMachines if the container has no dockerMachine the dockerMachine get created, while the delete could happen at sametime. Before this changes; all containers get created first then all dockerMachines get created (in between race condition could happen). So this changes create every container with its dockerMachine at the sametime to avoid race condition. Hope that make it clear :) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks for bearing with me with the explanation. When I review the PR, I start from the assumption that, if we consider a single MP, controller runtime ensures us that only one concurrent reconcile can happen anytime. That's means, that if we are running the code here we are in reconcile normal, and reconcileDelete won't start until the operation completes or fails. This rules out most of the race conditions. Also, assuming normal completes, the order of operations doesn't matter much, because at the end both dockerMachine and container should exist. However, what might happen is that it takes some time for the cache to see the newly created dockerMachines, so it will seems it is missing when reconcileDelete starts, even if it it actually exists on the API server (but this requires a different fix). Does this match with what are you observing? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm following the patch func here but not sure how the cache is delayed, Do we run the cache in concurrent exec ? |
||
desiredMachine := computeDesiredDockerMachine(machine.Name(), cluster, machinePool, dockerMachinePool, &existingMachine) | ||
if err := ssa.Patch(ctx, r.Client, dockerMachinePoolControllerName, desiredMachine, ssa.WithCachingProxy{Cache: r.ssaCache, Original: &existingMachine}); err != nil { | ||
return errors.Wrapf(err, "failed to update DockerMachine %q", klog.KObj(desiredMachine)) | ||
} | ||
|
||
dockerMachineMap[desiredMachine.Name] = *desiredMachine | ||
} else { | ||
log.V(2).Info("Creating a new DockerMachine for Docker container", "container", machine.Name()) | ||
desiredMachine := computeDesiredDockerMachine(machine.Name(), cluster, machinePool, dockerMachinePool, nil) | ||
if err := ssa.Patch(ctx, r.Client, dockerMachinePoolControllerName, desiredMachine); err != nil { | ||
return errors.Wrap(err, "failed to create a new docker machine") | ||
} | ||
|
||
dockerMachineMap[desiredMachine.Name] = *desiredMachine | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Step 2: | ||
// Delete any DockerMachines that correspond to a deleted Docker container. | ||
// Providers should iterate through the InfraMachines to ensure each one still corresponds to an existing infrastructure instance. | ||
// This allows the InfraMachine (and owner Machine) to be deleted and avoid hanging resources when a user deletes an instance out-of-band. | ||
for _, dockerMachine := range dockerMachineMap { | ||
if _, ok := externalMachineMap[dockerMachine.Name]; !ok { | ||
dockerMachine := dockerMachine | ||
log.V(2).Info("Deleting DockerMachine with no underlying infrastructure", "DockerMachine", klog.KObj(&dockerMachine)) | ||
log.Info("Deleting DockerMachine with no underlying infrastructure", "DockerMachine", klog.KObj(&dockerMachine)) | ||
if err := r.deleteMachinePoolMachine(ctx, dockerMachine); err != nil { | ||
return err | ||
} | ||
|
@@ -178,7 +160,7 @@ func (r *DockerMachinePoolReconciler) reconcileDockerMachines(ctx context.Contex | |
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Step 3: | ||
// Step 2: | ||
// This handles the scale down/excess replicas case and the case where a rolling upgrade is needed. | ||
// If there are more ready DockerMachines than desired replicas, start to delete the excess DockerMachines such that | ||
// - DockerMachines with an outdated Kubernetes version or custom image are deleted first (i.e. the rolling upgrade). | ||
|
@@ -218,7 +200,7 @@ func (r *DockerMachinePoolReconciler) reconcileDockerMachines(ctx context.Contex | |
for _, dockerMachine := range outdatedMachines { | ||
if overProvisionCount > 0 { | ||
dockerMachine := dockerMachine | ||
log.V(2).Info("Deleting DockerMachine because it is outdated", "DockerMachine", klog.KObj(&dockerMachine)) | ||
log.Info("Deleting DockerMachine because it is outdated", "DockerMachine", klog.KObj(&dockerMachine)) | ||
if err := r.deleteMachinePoolMachine(ctx, dockerMachine); err != nil { | ||
return err | ||
} | ||
|
@@ -231,7 +213,7 @@ func (r *DockerMachinePoolReconciler) reconcileDockerMachines(ctx context.Contex | |
for _, dockerMachine := range readyMachines { | ||
if overProvisionCount > 0 { | ||
dockerMachine := dockerMachine | ||
log.V(2).Info("Deleting DockerMachine because it is an excess replica", "DockerMachine", klog.KObj(&dockerMachine)) | ||
log.Info("Deleting DockerMachine because it is an excess replica", "DockerMachine", klog.KObj(&dockerMachine)) | ||
if err := r.deleteMachinePoolMachine(ctx, dockerMachine); err != nil { | ||
return err | ||
} | ||
|
@@ -272,6 +254,7 @@ func computeDesiredDockerMachine(name string, cluster *clusterv1.Cluster, machin | |
Name: dockerMachinePool.Name, | ||
UID: dockerMachinePool.UID, | ||
})) | ||
|
||
dockerMachine.Labels[clusterv1.ClusterNameLabel] = cluster.Name | ||
dockerMachine.Labels[clusterv1.MachinePoolNameLabel] = format.MustFormatValue(machinePool.Name) | ||
|
||
|
@@ -288,7 +271,7 @@ func (r *DockerMachinePoolReconciler) deleteMachinePoolMachine(ctx context.Conte | |
} | ||
// util.GetOwnerMachine() returns a nil Machine without error if there is no Machine kind in the ownerRefs, so we must verify that machine is not nil. | ||
if machine == nil { | ||
log.V(2).Info("No owner Machine exists for DockerMachine", "dockerMachine", klog.KObj(&dockerMachine)) | ||
log.Info("No owner Machine exists for DockerMachine", "dockerMachine", klog.KObj(&dockerMachine)) | ||
|
||
// If the DockerMachine does not have an owner Machine, do not attempt to delete the DockerMachine as the MachinePool controller will create the | ||
// Machine and we want to let it catch up. If we are too hasty to delete, that introduces a race condition where the DockerMachine could be deleted | ||
|
@@ -297,7 +280,8 @@ func (r *DockerMachinePoolReconciler) deleteMachinePoolMachine(ctx context.Conte | |
// In the case where the MachinePool is being deleted and the Machine will never come online, the DockerMachine will be deleted via its ownerRef to the | ||
// DockerMachinePool, so that is covered as well. | ||
|
||
return nil | ||
// Returning error as we need the dockerMachine not to proceed. | ||
return errors.New("No owner Machine exists for DockerMachine") | ||
} | ||
|
||
log.Info("Deleting Machine for DockerMachine", "Machine", klog.KObj(machine), "DockerMachine", klog.KObj(&dockerMachine)) | ||
|
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.
The delete call seems unchanged
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.
I kept the delete cause if the container get deleted out side of capi. It has to reflect what is exist in the infrastructure. Also it handle the replica scale down use-case if something wrong happen.
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.
But then we probably shouldn't drop the comment mentioning the deletion?