feat: add ModelServing eviction protection - #1485
Open
VanderChen wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Contributor
|
Caution The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub has been sunset. All code review activity has officially ceased. |
volcano-sh-bot
requested review from
LiZhenCheng9527,
YaoZengzeng,
git-malu,
hzxuzhonghu and
kube-gopher
August 3, 2026 07:31
Contributor
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Member
|
@VanderChen make sure ci is happy sir! |
Add opt-in eviction budgets for ModelServing workloads so voluntary node maintenance can preserve serving availability at ServingGroup or Role granularity. Track in-flight disruptions across webhook replicas, handle informer cache gaps and concurrent eviction requests, allow safe eviction of unhealthy targets, and validate strategy settings. Expose the webhook through the Helm chart and document the API and deployment configuration. Signed-off-by: Min Chen <vanderchen@outlook.com>
VanderChen
force-pushed
the
feat/006-modelserving-eviction-budget-rework-upstream
branch
from
August 5, 2026 01:25
ce35051 to
ccd20c7
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds opt-in eviction protection for ModelServing workloads.
During voluntary node maintenance, such as node draining for OS upgrades, hardware repair, or other operational work, multiple ModelServing Pods may be evicted concurrently. Without workload-aware protection, these evictions can reduce serving capacity below the availability required by the workload.
This PR introduces eviction budgets at two protection levels:
ServingGroup: limits how many ServingGroups may be disrupted at the same time;Role: limits disruptions independently for each Role within a ServingGroup.The strategy is configured through
spec.rolloutStrategy.evictionStrategy:protectionLevelselectsServingGrouporRoleprotection;minAvailabledefines the minimum available ServingGroups;roleMinAvailabledefines the minimum available Role instances for each Role.The eviction webhook:
The PR also adds:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1481
Bug evidence (required for bug-related PRs):
N/A. This is an enhancement.
The implementation was verified in a local Kind cluster with real
policy/v1Eviction requests.
Observed behavior:
minAvailable;roleMinAvailable;an already unavailable protection unit remained protected;
Special notes for your reviewer:
strategy configured.
minAvailable.roleMinAvailable, scoped by ServingGroup and Role.requests from independently consuming the same availability budget.
ModelServing controller reconciliation or recovery behavior.
concurrency handling, and NotReady target behavior.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: