-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
Fix router panic when all target model weights are zero #727
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
Open
WHOIM1205
wants to merge
1
commit into
volcano-sh:main
Choose a base branch
from
WHOIM1205:fix/zero-weight-panic
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+71
−0
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Check 0 idea is reasonable.But i dont think we should return zero here(It will cover up configuration errors and directly select the first target.)
for example:
kthena/pkg/kthena-router/datastore/store.go
Lines 941 to 950 in a8c9193
selectDestination will select targets[0] (server-a)
Maybe we can add check in
toWeightedSliceto throw an errorkthena/pkg/kthena-router/datastore/store.go
Lines 952 to 974 in a8c9193
to inform users that their coniguration is not right
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.
thanks for the suggestion
for this pr i’m intentionally keeping the fix scoped to preventing the runtime panic on the request path returning a deterministic fallback here avoids crashing the router for edgecase or transitional configurations
validating or rejecting misconfiguration earlier (e.g.,, at config or controller level) makes sense but i’d prefer to keep this change defensive and minimal rather than introducing a new panic in the routing path
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.
We should deny this CR in validating webhook actually.
Also this defensive validating make sense to me.
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.
That makes sense
for this pr i kept the change focused on avoiding the runtime panic in the router path adding validation in the webhook to reject all zero weights sounds like the right place for enforcing configuration correctness and i’m happy to follow up with a separate change for that
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 agree with @YaoZengzeng YOu should verify it in validation as well
If all the weight is set to 0. Why do you choose targets[0]
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.
in the all zero case returning targets[0] is just a deterministic fallback to keep the router from crashing on the request path not a correct routing decision
I agree this configuration should ideally be rejected earlier via validation this pr is intentionally scoped to making the runtime path defensive
Happy to align if you’d prefer validation to be included here.