Currently, resources prefixed with *kubernetes.io/ get scheduled to any
node whether it's exposing that resource or not.
On the other hand, resources prefixed with someother.domain/ don't get
scheduled to a node until that node is exposing that resource (or if the
resource is ignored because of scheduler extender).
This commit brings the behavior of *kubernetes.io/ prefixed resources in
line with other extended resources and they will remain unscheduled
until some node exposes these resources.
This also includes renaming IsDefaultNamespaceResource() to
IsNativeResource().
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 60236, 60332, 57375, 60451, 57408). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.
cleanup useless functions in pkg/quota/evaluator/core/services.go
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
cleanup useless functions in pkg/quota/evaluator/core/services.go
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.
Support for resource quota on extended resources
**Which issue(s) this PR fixes** :
Fixes#46639#57300 for resource quota support
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
One thing to be determined is if it necessary to Explicitly prohibit defining limits for extended resources in quota, like we did for [hugepages](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/54292#pullrequestreview-74982771), as the resource is not allowed to overcommit.
**Release note**:
```release-note
Support for resource quota on extended resources
```
/cc @jiayingz @vishh @derekwaynecarr
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 49856, 56257, 57027, 57695, 57432). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.
remove duplicated validation from pod's resourcequota admission
ResourceQuota is a validating admission plugin. Before it runs, pods
has already been validated. It's not necessary to validate it again.
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
Charge object count when object is created, no matter if the object is
initialized or not.
Charge the remaining quota when the object is initialized.
Also, checking initializer.Pending and initializer.Result when
determining if an object is initialized. We didn't need to check them
because before 51082, having 0 pending initializer and nil
initializers.Result is invalid.
Introduce feature gate for expanding PVs
Add a field to SC
Add new Conditions and feature tag pvc update
Add tests for size update via feature gate
register the resize admission plugin
Update golint failures
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 50932, 49610, 51312, 51415, 50705)
Add local storage support in Quota
Add local storage(scratch, overlay) support in quota
**Release note**:
```release-note
Add local ephemeral storage support to Quota
```
/cc @ddysher @jingxu97
Automatic merge from submit-queue
nodeports usage should be part of LoadBalancer service type
Since a creation of Service of type LoadBalancer will allocate NodePorts as well, so it makes more sense to account for the NodePort usage in the LoadBalancer switch case.
check here: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/pkg/registry/core/service/rest.go#L553 for the logic on whether it should assign a nodeport for the service.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/quota
cc @vishh @derekwaynecarr
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Rohit Agarwal