OCPBUGS-61384: Fix scheduling for keepalived

[mkowalski]

- What I did
Modified scheduling configuration of keepalived. It is supposed to give more resources/priority so that keepalived is less prone to miss its healtchecks in a scenario where it gets less CPU than it needs.

- How to verify it
Deploy a cluster using metal platform. Confirm installation succeeds. Use dev-scripts or any other test environment of your choice.

- Description for the changelog

Scheduling configuration for keepalived process has been changed. As a result, the process should be more robust and unnecessary VIP failovers should be happening less often.

Fixes: OCPBUGS-61384

[openshift-ci-robot]

@mkowalski: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-61384, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

- What I did
Modified scheduling configuration of keepalived. It is supposed to give more resources/priority so that keepalived is less prone to miss its healtchecks in a scenario where it gets less CPU than it needs.

- How to verify it
Deploy a cluster using metal platform. Confirm installation succeeds. Use dev-scripts or any other test environment of your choice.

- Description for the changelog

Scheduling configuration for keepalived process has been changed. As a result, the process should be more robust and unnecessary VIP failovers should be happening less often.

Fixes: OCPBUGS-61384

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[mkowalski]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@mkowalski: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-61384, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.21.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.21.0)
• bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @rbbratta

In response to this:

/jira refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci]

@mkowalski: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade-out-of-change	7fa7901	link	false	/test e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade-out-of-change
ci/prow/okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn	7fa7901	link	false	/test okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn
ci/prow/e2e-openstack	7fa7901	link	false	/test e2e-openstack
ci/prow/e2e-azure-ovn-upgrade-out-of-change	7fa7901	link	false	/test e2e-azure-ovn-upgrade-out-of-change
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-windows	7fa7901	link	false	/test e2e-aws-ovn-windows
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade	7fa7901	link	true	/test e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn	7fa7901	link	true	/test e2e-aws-ovn
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-op-ocl	7fa7901	link	false	/test e2e-gcp-op-ocl
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-mco-disruptive	7fa7901	link	false	/test e2e-gcp-mco-disruptive
ci/prow/e2e-aws-mco-disruptive	7fa7901	link	false	/test e2e-aws-mco-disruptive

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[cybertron]

/lgtm

If it helps avoid keepalived getting blamed for every performance issue ever, I'm all for it. :-)

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cybertron, mkowalski
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign isabella-janssen for approval. 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:

• OWNERS

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

[mkowalski]

/cc @rbbratta for verified label? I tested it on my dev-scripts setup and worked but in principle I should not be testing my own changes