Skip to content
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

Fix ambiguous sentence about topologySpreadConstraints #47947

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 24, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -477,8 +477,8 @@ There are some implicit conventions worth noting here:

- Only the Pods holding the same namespace as the incoming Pod can be matching candidates.

- The scheduler bypasses any nodes that don't have any `topologySpreadConstraints[*].topologyKey`
present. This implies that:
- The scheduler only considers nodes that have all `topologySpreadConstraints[*].topologyKey` present at the same time.
Nodes missing any of these `topologyKeys` are bypassed. This implies that:

1. any Pods located on those bypassed nodes do not impact `maxSkew` calculation - in the
above [example](#example-conflicting-topologyspreadconstraints), suppose the node `node1`
Expand Down