-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 213
Bug 2006611: Upgrade takes too much time when upgrading via --to-image #808
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
Merged
openshift-merge-robot
merged 1 commit into
openshift:master
from
DavidHurta:bug-2006611-to-image-takes-a-long-time
Aug 30, 2022
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The CVO using the in-cluster ClusterVersion to pass state from one goroutine to another feels sticky... I'm not set against it, but it would be nice if we could find a way to plumb the data we need through without having to pass this thing we just got from the cluster here.
syncUpgradeableis already anOperatormethod, so it should have access to a lot of state already...Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I had seen this, but somehow did not spend time figuring out if we can avoid this.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I wasn't keen on it either. However, the
syncAvailableUpdates()inpkg/cvo/availableupdates.gouses the cluster version as a parameter also (https://github.com/openshift/cluster-version-operator/blob/master/pkg/cvo/availableupdates.go#L31), so I ended up using here as well. (Now I see the commit db150e6 for that change was from 4 years ago).Another alternative I can think of is calling the
in
syncUpgradeable()but I'll try to think of a better idea.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do not think it is a bad idea to pass
configinoptr.syncUpgradeable(config)becauseupgradeableSync()is aleady in a go-routine and it is calling theoptr.cvLister.Get(optr.name). So I do not think there is much difference betweenupgradeableSync()orSyncUpgradeable()callingoptr.cvLister.Get(optr.name)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, I don't think it matters if we shift the
Getaround. What I'd like long-term is no get at all in this pathway. Looking here, here, and here, something likeoptr.getUpgradeable().Conditionswill get you the current conditions without having to leave local CVO memory. Although a lock guarding access to a pointer property seems a bit suspect...