topology-aware: don't (ac)count 0 CPU req. containers in the reserved pool to shared pools #604
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
klihub
force-pushed
the
fixes/has-0-cpureq-containers
branch
from
f68b450 to
8d579fc
Compare
askervin
reviewed
Dec 16, 2025
Disregard containers assigned to the reserved pool when looking for containers with 0 CPU request. Signed-off-by: Krisztian Litkey <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Krisztian Litkey <[email protected]>
klihub
force-pushed
the
fixes/has-0-cpureq-containers
branch
from
8d579fc to
3646e50
Compare
kad
approved these changes
Dec 17, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This patch series should fix the observed failure to allocate exclusive CPUs reported here: #602 (comment).
In particular it updates the topology-aware policy to
Note that due to runc still being broken wrt. allocating CPUs with logical ID > 1024, the above linked test case of #599 still fails. But now only due to runc, with the actual resource allocation and intended policy CPU assignment being as expected, as can be observed by running something like this on the test VM host once the test case has failed: