Remove strict check in scorer plugins and respect maxskew, requeue when no pods available rather than fail Scheduler

[aavarghese]

Signed-off-by: aavarghese avarghese@us.ibm.com

Fixes #6523

Proposed Changes

• Removed strict check for at least one pod per zone/node in priority plugins: AvailabilityZonePriority and AvailabilityNodePriority. Reason: Some worker/control nodes may or may not be assigned to any particular zone topology and so will not have pod replicas created in them...
• Return "Requeue" request to controller when there are more vreplicas to place that need autoscaler to scale up, instead of throwing a Scheduler failed error

Pre-review Checklist

• At least 80% unit test coverage
• E2E tests for any new behavior
• Docs PR for any user-facing impact
• Spec PR for any new API feature
• Conformance test for any change to the spec

Release Note

Remove strict check in scorer plugins and respect max skew parameter. Requeue request when no pods available rather than fail scheduler.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 81.98% // Head: 81.96% // Decreases project coverage by -0.01% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (07ecc1f) compared to base (645fd88).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6524      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.98%   81.96%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         235      235              
  Lines       11733    11726       -7     
==========================================
- Hits         9619     9611       -8     
- Misses       1642     1644       +2     
+ Partials      472      471       -1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...labilitynodepriority/availability_node_priority.go	81.39% <ø> (+11.18%)	⬆️
...labilityzonepriority/availability_zone_priority.go	82.60% <ø> (+11.18%)	⬆️
pkg/scheduler/scheduler.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
pkg/scheduler/statefulset/scheduler.go	79.13% <100.00%> (-2.80%)	⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[aavarghese]

/cc @pierDipi @lionelvillard @aslom

[aavarghese]

/cc @pierDipi

[pierDipi]

/lgtm
/approve

[knative-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: aavarghese, pierDipi

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [pierDipi]

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

[aavarghese]

/cherry-pick release-1.5

[aavarghese]

/cherry-pick release-1.6

[aavarghese]

/cherry-pick release-1.7

[knative-prow-robot]

@aavarghese: new pull request created: #6526

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-1.5

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/test-infra repository.

[knative-prow-robot]

@aavarghese: new pull request created: #6527

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-1.6

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/test-infra repository.

[knative-prow-robot]

@aavarghese: new pull request created: #6528

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-1.7

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/test-infra repository.