UPSTREAM: 53989: Remove repeated random string generations in scheduler volume predicate

[aveshagarwal]

@sjenning @smarterclayton

Though the upstream PR 53793 has been backported to kube 1.7 branch (53884). I am not sure if we have a plan for another origin rebase to latest kube 1.7, and if we would want to wait for that.

So this backports following 3 PRs:
kubernetes/kubernetes#53793
kubernetes/kubernetes#53720 (partial)
kubernetes/kubernetes#53989

[bparees]

/unassign

[aveshagarwal]

/unassign soltysh

[sjenning]

/retest

[aveshagarwal]

what is "needs-upstream" label?

[aveshagarwal]

/test extended_conformance_install_update

[sjenning]

@aveshagarwal yeah, i think that label is recently added in openshift/release#214 to all PRs with UPSTREAM commits so that infra can gate those PRs during a rebase.

@stevekuznetsov can you confirm?

[stevekuznetsov]

@sjenning yes you understand correctly

[stevekuznetsov]

@sjenning @aveshagarwal if the messaging is not clear, could we change the label or name it differently to make it more clear?

[sjenning]

@stevekuznetsov I guess my first reaction was color{red} = PR is blocked and the needs-* prefix makes me think that action is required. When really, it is an annotation and only blocking if there is a rebase gate in place.

Maybe a non-red label color and rather than "needs-upstream" maybe just "upstream" or "vendor-patch"?

[stevekuznetsov]

Makes sense. Opened https://github.com/openshift/release/issues/287 to track it

[aveshagarwal]

@sjenning +1, also leaving a message (something like "the label is informational and no action is required") in addition to the label might help avoid confusion too.

@stevekuznetsov is there any rebase going on now? if not, why was this label added? robot error?

[aveshagarwal]

@liggitt I was waiting for that (kubernetes/kubernetes#53989) to merge to pick that up so I am aware. But these PRs also helped reduce performance regression to some extent.

[aveshagarwal]

@liggitt specifically kubernetes/kubernetes#53720 helped with some performance issue, and the other one helps with leader election issue.

[aveshagarwal]

@sjenning @liggitt I have backported kubernetes/kubernetes#53989 too in this PR. PTAL.

[aveshagarwal]

/test extended_conformance_install_update

[liggitt]

two cleanups, then LGTM

• squash UPSTREAM: 53793: modifications needed for 3.7. into the other UPSTREAM: 53793 commit
• drop UPSTREAM: 53720: Add benchmark for random string generation utility, we don't need to carry a test-only benchmark commit

[aveshagarwal]

@liggitt updated, PTAL. thanks.

[aveshagarwal]

/test extended_conformance_gce
/test end_to_end
/test cmd
/test extended_conformance_install_update

[aveshagarwal]

/test extended_conformance_gce
/test extended_conformance_install_update

[aveshagarwal]

@sjenning @liggitt reminder

[liggitt]

/lgtm

[openshift-merge-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: aveshagarwal, liggitt, sjenning

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

• OWNERS [liggitt]

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[aveshagarwal]

wonder why this PR is stuck and not merged?

[openshift-bot]

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

[openshift-merge-robot]

Automatic merge from submit-queue.

[stevekuznetsov]

@aveshagarwal remember to look at the Submit Queue status at the bottom of PRs -- it will say what is missing.