Merge pull request #48169 from RifeWang/sync-zh-docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/topology-spread-constraints

[zh-cn] sync docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/topology-spread-constr…

Author: k8s-ci-robot

content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/topology-spread-constraints.md

@@ -745,8 +745,8 @@ There are some implicit conventions worth noting here:
 
 - Only the Pods holding the same namespace as the incoming Pod can be matching candidates.
 
-- The scheduler bypasses any nodes that don't have any `topologySpreadConstraints[*].topologyKey`
-  present. This implies that:
+- The scheduler only considers nodes that have all `topologySpreadConstraints[*].topologyKey` present at the same time.
+  Nodes missing any of these `topologyKeys` are bypassed. This implies that:
 
   1. any Pods located on those bypassed nodes do not impact `maxSkew` calculation - in the
      above [example](#example-conflicting-topologyspreadconstraints), suppose the node `node1`
@@ -763,7 +763,7 @@ There are some implicit conventions worth noting here:
 
 - 只有与新来的 Pod 具有相同命名空间的 Pod 才能作为匹配候选者。
 
-- 调度器会忽略没有任何 `topologySpreadConstraints[*].topologyKey` 的节点。这意味着：
+- 调度器只考虑同时拥有所有 `topologySpreadConstraints[*].topologyKey` 的节点。缺少任何一个 `topologyKey` 的节点将被跳过。这意味着：
 
   1. 位于这些节点上的 Pod 不影响 `maxSkew` 计算，在上面的[例子](#example-conflicting-topologyspreadconstraints)中，
      假设节点 `node1` 没有标签 "zone"，则 2 个 Pod 将被忽略，因此新来的