add task status named ReleasingFailed

[ycfnana]

the question is #2922
I met a problem, pod always be Pending when one node has zombie pod and another node has enough reource, due to the relaesing status, I think waiting time larger than TerminationGracePeriodSeconds it should not be releaseing, may happen something error, its should be another status like ReleasingFailed

[lowang-bh]

Thanks for your contributions!
This is a great change and will have a large effect.
Would you please provide those informations?

1. the necessary ut tests.
2. the scenario what happens without the change, and the result with this fix.

[ycfnana]

Thanks for your contributions! This is a great change and will have a large effect. Would you please provide those informations?

1. the necessary ut tests.
2. the scenario what happens without the change, and the result with this fix.

Thanks, I'll add ut test next week.
I have an issue, there are enough resource both in nodeA and nodeB. PodB in nodeB has been deleted, but the status is still "Terminating" due to the zombie progress.
In the time, add the new job named JobC with PodD, it can be scheduled in nodeA, but status of podD is Pending. From its log, I find status of JobC is "Pipelined", waiting nodeB to releasing podB. But podB has something wrong like "ReleasingFailed".
So I want to fix this condition.

[ycfnana]

Thanks for your contributions! This is a great change and will have a large effect. Would you please provide those informations?

1. the necessary ut tests.
2. the scenario what happens without the change, and the result with this fix.

can you help review it again?

[volcano-sh-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please assign qiankunli
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @qiankunli in a comment when ready.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• pkg/scheduler/OWNERS

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

[ycfnana]

/assign @qiankunli

[lowang-bh]

Thanks for your contributions! This is a great change and will have a large effect. Would you please provide those informations?

1. the necessary ut tests.
2. the scenario what happens without the change, and the result with this fix.

can you help review it again?

It is clear to me now. Just a little comment, why don't put node-name "n3" at the parameter location of function buildPod? Thanks.

case2Pod3 := util.BuildPod("c2", "p3", "", v1.PodRunning, util.BuildResourceListWithGPU("2", "4G", "3"), "pg3", make(map[string]string), make(map[string]string))
case2Pod3.CreationTimestamp = metav1.Time{Time: time.Now().Add(-20 * time.Minute)}
case2Pod3.Spec.NodeName = "n3"

Hi, @wangyang0616 please help to review this pr. It has something to do with the enhancement in PR #2815 .

[ycfnana]

/assign @wangyang0616 @william-wang @huone1
can somebody help review it

[wangyang0616]

Can this pr #2815 fix your problem.

[ycfnana]

Can this pr #2815 fix your problem.

thanks，it looks better

[Thor-wl]

@ycfnana Thanks for your report. Personally speaking, I think the root reason is something goes wrong with the unexpected pod status instead of task's status. There is no enough resource to start new pods, which belong to the pipelined jobs. So I don't get the point why should add a task status and what this can help for users.
/hold

[ycfnana]

@ycfnana Thanks for your report. Personally speaking, I think the root reason is something goes wrong with the unexpected pod status instead of task's status. There is no enough resource to start new pods, which belong to the pipelined jobs. So I don't get the point why should add a task status and what this can help for users. /hold

thanks, sometimes pod status is pending even if there are enough resources to start a new pod because of unexpected pod status, you can see my comment in my ut code. But this pr #2815 may solve my problem. I'll close this pr if test it's ok