Skip to content

Conversation

kannon92
Copy link
Contributor

@kannon92 kannon92 commented Oct 9, 2025

Address followups such as oom.group risk, calling out kubeadm as out of scope and renaming the top level folder to reflect the true name of the KEP.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/kep Categorizes KEP tracking issues and PRs modifying the KEP directory sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. labels Oct 9, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Oct 9, 2025
@kannon92
Copy link
Contributor Author

kannon92 commented Oct 9, 2025

/assign @pacoxu @BenTheElder @dchen1107


NA.
In this KEP, we will focus on the kubelet related work to remove cgroup v1.
Projects like minikube, kubeadm, kubespray and others may need work to support this flag going to false
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

kubeadm already supports customizing kubelet config so I'm not sure if anything needs to be done here, updates to the preflight checks? docs?

kubeadm is a little bit weird because it's in-tree and used for release-blocking signal (similarly if the node_e2e or kube-up scripts didn't work we'd have a problem), I think calling out out-of-tree projects as out of scope is at least reasonable.

It's not super great to release k/k with the release binaries out of sync.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The rest of the diff LGTM, not sure about this part.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not super great to release k/k with the release binaries out of sync.

I don't follow what you mean here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

kubeadm already supports customizing kubelet config so I'm not sure if anything needs to be done here, updates to the preflight checks? docs?

#5574 (comment)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't follow what you mean here.

Saying "this kep won't wait for another core release binary to be ready" is a little different from "we're not going to block on out of tree projects updating", kubeadm is part of the core kubernetes release. We shouldn't release a broken state.

#5574 (comment)

I see ... commented

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

kubeadm is a little bit weird because it's in-tree and used for release-blocking signal (similarly if the node_e2e or kube-up scripts didn't work we'd have a problem), I think calling out out-of-tree projects as out of scope is at least reasonable.

That's true and we also have an issue to move it out which is not updated for a long time. #1424

https://github.com/kubernetes/system-validators/blob/a7fadf67da1228984480d7e8dd9c8ae39803a442/validators/cgroup_validator_linux.go#L117

		warns = append(warns, errors.New("cgroups v1 support is in maintenance mode, please migrate to cgroups v2"))

We have a warning message when cgroup v1 support went to maintenance mode.

After this change happened in kubelet, we will update it to an error IIUC. This will be tracked in kubernetes/system-validators#58.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I took a stab at addressing this. I'm not entirely sure what the goal is for system-validators but I call that out as a goal for this KEP.

Copy link
Member

@SergeyKanzhelev SergeyKanzhelev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 9, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: kannon92, SergeyKanzhelev
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from dchen1107. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 10, 2025
@kannon92 kannon92 force-pushed the follow-up-cgroup-v1-removal branch from 34647d0 to ebf755a Compare October 10, 2025 16:44
@pacoxu
Copy link
Member

pacoxu commented Oct 11, 2025

/lgtm
/assign @dchen1107 @mrunalp

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 11, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/kep Categorizes KEP tracking issues and PRs modifying the KEP directory lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants