Kubernetes v1.12
betaKubernetes keeps many aspects of how pods execute on nodes abstracted from the user. This is by design. However, some workloads require stronger guarantees in terms of latency and/or performance in order to operate acceptably. The kubelet provides methods to enable more complex workload placement policies while keeping the abstraction free from explicit placement directives.
You need to have a Kubernetes cluster, and the kubectl command-line tool must be configured to communicate with your cluster. If you do not already have a cluster, you can create one by using Minikube, or you can use one of these Kubernetes playgrounds:
To check the version, enter kubectl version
.
By default, the kubelet uses CFS quota to enforce pod CPU limits. When the node runs many CPU-bound pods, the workload can move to different CPU cores depending on whether the pod is throttled and which CPU cores are available at scheduling time. Many workloads are not sensitive to this migration and thus work fine without any intervention.
However, in workloads where CPU cache affinity and scheduling latency significantly affect workload performance, the kubelet allows alternative CPU management policies to determine some placement preferences on the node.
The CPU Manager policy is set with the --cpu-manager-policy
kubelet
option. There are two supported policies:
none
: the default policy.static
: allows pods with certain resource characteristics to be
granted increased CPU affinity and exclusivity on the node.The CPU manager periodically writes resource updates through the CRI in
order to reconcile in-memory CPU assignments with cgroupfs. The reconcile
frequency is set through a new Kubelet configuration value
--cpu-manager-reconcile-period
. If not specified, it defaults to the same
duration as --node-status-update-frequency
.
The none
policy explicitly enables the existing default CPU
affinity scheme, providing no affinity beyond what the OS scheduler does
automatically. Limits on CPU usage for
Guaranteed pods
are enforced using CFS quota.
The static
policy allows containers in Guaranteed
pods with integer CPU
requests
access to exclusive CPUs on the node. This exclusivity is enforced
using the cpuset cgroup controller.
Note: System services such as the container runtime and the kubelet itself can continue to run on these exclusive CPUs. The exclusivity only extends to other pods.
Note: CPU Manager doesn’t support offlining and onlining of CPUs at runtime. Also, if the set of online CPUs changes on the node, the node must be drained and CPU manager manually reset by deleting the state filecpu_manager_state
in the kubelet root directory.
This policy manages a shared pool of CPUs that initially contains all CPUs in the
node. The amount of exclusively allocatable CPUs is equal to the total
number of CPUs in the node minus any CPU reservations by the kubelet --kube-reserved
or
--system-reserved
options. CPUs reserved by these options are taken, in
integer quantity, from the initial shared pool in ascending order by physical
core ID. This shared pool is the set of CPUs on which any containers in
BestEffort
and Burstable
pods run. Containers in Guaranteed
pods with fractional
CPU requests
also run on CPUs in the shared pool. Only containers that are
both part of a Guaranteed
pod and have integer CPU requests
are assigned
exclusive CPUs.
Note: The kubelet requires a CPU reservation greater than zero be made using either--kube-reserved
and/or--system-reserved
when the static policy is enabled. This is because zero CPU reservation would allow the shared pool to become empty.
As Guaranteed
pods whose containers fit the requirements for being statically
assigned are scheduled to the node, CPUs are removed from the shared pool and
placed in the cpuset for the container. CFS quota is not used to bound
the CPU usage of these containers as their usage is bound by the scheduling domain
itself. In others words, the number of CPUs in the container cpuset is equal to the integer
CPU limit
specified in the pod spec. This static assignment increases CPU
affinity and decreases context switches due to throttling for the CPU-bound
workload.
Consider the containers in the following pod specs:
spec:
containers:
- name: nginx
image: nginx
This pod runs in the BestEffort
QoS class because no resource requests
or
limits
are specified. It runs in the shared pool.
spec:
containers:
- name: nginx
image: nginx
resources:
limits:
memory: "200Mi"
requests:
memory: "100Mi"
This pod runs in the Burstable
QoS class because resource requests
do not
equal limits
and the cpu
quantity is not specified. It runs in the shared
pool.
spec:
containers:
- name: nginx
image: nginx
resources:
limits:
memory: "200Mi"
cpu: "2"
requests:
memory: "100Mi"
cpu: "1"
This pod runs in the Burstable
QoS class because resource requests
do not
equal limits
. It runs in the shared pool.
spec:
containers:
- name: nginx
image: nginx
resources:
limits:
memory: "200Mi"
cpu: "2"
requests:
memory: "200Mi"
cpu: "2"
This pod runs in the Guaranteed
QoS class because requests
are equal to limits
.
And the container’s resource limit for the CPU resource is an integer greater than
or equal to one. The nginx
container is granted 2 exclusive CPUs.
spec:
containers:
- name: nginx
image: nginx
resources:
limits:
memory: "200Mi"
cpu: "1.5"
requests:
memory: "200Mi"
cpu: "1.5"
This pod runs in the Guaranteed
QoS class because requests
are equal to limits
.
But the container’s resource limit for the CPU resource is a fraction. It runs in
the shared pool.
spec:
containers:
- name: nginx
image: nginx
resources:
limits:
memory: "200Mi"
cpu: "2"
This pod runs in the Guaranteed
QoS class because only limits
are specified
and requests
are set equal to limits
when not explicitly specified. And the
container’s resource limit for the CPU resource is an integer greater than or
equal to one. The nginx
container is granted 2 exclusive CPUs.
Was this page helpful?
Thanks for the feedback. If you have a specific, answerable question about how to use Kubernetes, ask it on Stack Overflow. Open an issue in the GitHub repo if you want to report a problem or suggest an improvement.