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

KEP-2170: Add the TrainJob state transition design #2298

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tenzen-y
Copy link
Member

What this PR does / why we need it:
I added the TrainJob state machine design.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in Fixes #<issue number>, #<issue number>, ... format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Part-of #2207
Relates to: #2170

Checklist:

  • Docs included if any changes are user facing

Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from tenzen-y. For more information see the Kubernetes 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

@tenzen-y
Copy link
Member Author

/hold
/assign @kubeflow/wg-training-leads

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Oct 20, 2024

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 11430149305

Details

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 100.0%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 11426928089: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 73
Relevant Lines: 73

💛 - Coveralls

@tenzen-y tenzen-y force-pushed the add-trainjob-state-transition branch from 851738c to 069345f Compare October 20, 2024 22:00
@google-oss-prow google-oss-prow bot added size/M and removed size/L labels Oct 20, 2024
@tenzen-y tenzen-y force-pushed the add-trainjob-state-transition branch from 069345f to 39bfab2 Compare October 20, 2024 22:05
Signed-off-by: Yuki Iwai <yuki.iwai.tz@gmail.com>
@tenzen-y tenzen-y force-pushed the add-trainjob-state-transition branch from 39bfab2 to 8ba2206 Compare October 20, 2024 22:28
Copy link
Member

@andreyvelich andreyvelich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you for this @tenzen-y!
Please take a look @kubeflow/wg-training-leads @kannon92 @akshaychitneni @varshaprasad96 @ahg-g @vsoch @danielvegamyhre

// TrainJobSuspended means the TrainJob is suspended.
TrainJobSuspended string = "Suspended"

// TrainJobCompleted means that the actual jobs have completed its execution.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should it be TrainJob, and similar for other statuses ?

Suggested change
// TrainJobCompleted means that the actual jobs have completed its execution.
// TrainJobCompleted means that the TrainJob has completed its execution.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

@@ -279,6 +279,43 @@ type TrainJob struct {
Status TrainJobStatus `json:"status,omitempty"`
}

const (
Copy link
Member

@andreyvelich andreyvelich Oct 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we define those consts as TrainJobConditionType similar to Batch/Job: https://github.com/kubernetes/api/blob/master/batch/v1/types.go#L617 ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think so since our conditions typed are metav1.Condition and the Type is typed string.
The batch/v1 Job uses the typed JobConditionType since Job conditions typed are dedicated JobCondition: https://github.com/kubernetes/api/blob/2be23f6c5a7184af9846ff458a11751765ea2bde/batch/v1/types.go#L662

When we use the dedicated typed TrainJobConditionType, we need to cast the TrainJobConditionType to string everywhere. That is not ideal.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, you are right.


// TrainJobResumedReason is the "Suspended" condition reason.
// When the TrainJob suspension is changed from True to False, this is added.
TrainJobResumedReason string = "Resumed"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@tenzen-y @kannon92 Do we have that status reason in JobSet or Job ?

Copy link
Member Author

@tenzen-y tenzen-y Oct 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, we have. In the batch/v1 Job level, JobResumed is used as a reason for the Suspended condition type.
In the JobSet level, ResumeJobs is used as a reason for the Suspended condition type.

Comment on lines +305 to +316
// TrainJobJobsCreationSucceededReason is the "Created" condition reason.
// When the creating objects succeeded after building succeeded, this is added.
TrainJobJobsCreationSucceededReason string = "JobsCreationSucceeded"

// TrainJobJobsBuildFailedReason is the "Created" condition reason.
// When the building objects based on the TrainJob and the specified runtime failed,
// this is added.
TrainJobJobsBuildFailedReason string = "JobsBuildFailed"

// TrainJobJobsCreationFailedReason is "Created" condition reason.
// When the creating objects failed even though building succeeded, this is added.
TrainJobJobsCreationFailedReason string = "JobsCreationFailed"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we introduce those conditions in the 2nd iteration ?
I think, we should discuss if users really want to decouple conditions when TrainJob's object creation failed and when TrainJob fails.

Copy link
Member Author

@tenzen-y tenzen-y Oct 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These are reasons, so we use these in the following. Additionally, if we do not distinguish JobCreationFailed and JobBuildFailed, it is hard to understand which part failed. So, these reasons must be included in the first phase.

status:
  conditions:
  - type: Created
    status: false
    reason: JobsCreationFailed
status:
  conditions:
  - type: Created
    status: false
    reason: JobsBuildFailed
status:
  conditions:
  - type: Created
    status: true
    reason: JobsCreationSucceeded

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since we have validation webhook, what is the use-case you see when we can hit the JobsBuildFailed reason ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We can not validate in advance if NewObject succeed since we can not know in advance what happens during the NewObject.

Only during reconciling, we can know the actual error.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, I guess one of the examples could be if NewObject calls Kubernetes API server and this call fails.
In that case, we want to transition TrainJob to JobsBuildFailed status.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In that case, we want to transition TrainJob to JobsBuildFailed status.

Yes, that's right. In the current JobSet plugin, the building error could happen in the following:

Additionally, every plugin could return errors during Kubeflow Job Pipeline Framerowk.

Comment on lines +1000 to +1003
- type: JobSetSuspended
status: false
- type: JobSetCompleted
status: true
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why do we need to propagate JobSet conditions to the TrainJob ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I propagated these JobSet conditions so that runtimes can be propagated to the arbitrary conditions.
But, in the JobSet case, these seem to be slightly redundant. So, I'm wondering if we only extend the runtime interface so that the plugin can propagate arbitrary conditions, but JobSet plugin does not propagate own conditions, then TrainJob does not have the JobSet conditions.

But, I guess that the JobSet StartupPolocy conditions could help to understand what happens in the actual Jobs.
So, we can propagate only StartupPolicyInProgress and StartupPolicyCompleted.

https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/jobset/blob/440f53e13ed1db15d4f1d5a04c2450e74df4d1e8/api/jobset/v1alpha2/jobset_types.go#L75-L78

@andreyvelich WDYT?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, I'm wondering if we only extend the runtime interface so that the plugin can propagate arbitrary conditions, but JobSet plugin does not propagate own conditions, then TrainJob does not have the JobSet conditions.

I would suggest that we add those once we have initial implementation of TrainJob status.
I think, this is valid option, but we should discuss what conditions be be propagated by runtime plugins.

Any thoughts @tenzen-y ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would suggest that we add those once we have initial implementation of TrainJob status.
I think, this is valid option, but we should discuss what conditions be be propagated by runtime plugins.

I think that we need to implement the conditions propagation mechanism, but it's not clear in the JobSet situation. Especially, which conditions should be propagated to the TrainJob. So, I would propose that we extend the runtime interface so that plugins can propagate the conditions to TrainJob. But, in the first status implementation, we do not propagate any JobSet conditions to the TrainJob.

What do you think? @andreyvelich

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, I would propose that we extend the runtime interface so that plugins can propagate the conditions to TrainJob.

Sure, we can have this. Maybe we should create a tracking issue to implement it ?
I don't think is has a high priority compare to other tasks.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, sure. I will open the issue.
But, let me mention the propagation mechanism in this KEP.

[...]
status:
conditions:
- type: Created
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would it be helpful to add transition time and also reason for failure within conditions? I believe it would be help debugging failures

Copy link
Member Author

@tenzen-y tenzen-y Oct 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is pseudo conditions. So, we actually support all fields supported in metav1.Conditions including transition time as you can see there:

// Conditions for the TrainJob.
Conditions []metav1.Condition `json:"conditions,omitempty"`

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants