Proposal fast ipam

[ivelichkovich]

What this PR does / why we need it:

proposal for fast IPAM through node slicing. Code PR: https://github.com/k8snetworkplumbingwg/whereabouts/pull/458

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged): Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer (optional):

[dougbtv]

One thing I'm kind of thinking about is that the reconciler has this "audit style reconciliation" that runs on a timed fashion. I'm wondering if we might introduce resource contention with it with the fast style allocation since it won't be using the leases. Just thinking out loud

[ivelichkovich]

One thing I'm kind of thinking about is that the reconciler has this "audit style reconciliation" that runs on a timed fashion. I'm wondering if we might introduce resource contention with it with the fast style allocation since it won't be using the leases. Just thinking out loud

Are you referring to the gocron running within the existing reconciler controller? That one doesn't use leases at all as far as I can tell, it calls allocation.IterateForDeallocation directly.

[dougbtv]

One thing I'm kind of thinking about is that the reconciler has this "audit style reconciliation" that runs on a timed fashion. I'm wondering if we might introduce resource contention with it with the fast style allocation since it won't be using the leases. Just thinking out loud

Are you referring to the gocron running within the existing reconciler controller? That one doesn't use leases at all as far as I can tell, it calls allocation.IterateForDeallocation directly.

So! That being the case... we don't need to worry about it. I think that might just be an existing issue, so, I will look into that, thanks for taking a peek.

[github-actions[bot]]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9023285561

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 11 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.4%) to 71.99%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
cmd/whereabouts.go	11	46.99%
<!--	Total:	11

Totals
Change from base Build 8689276647:	-0.4%
Covered Lines:	1136
Relevant Lines:	1578

---

💛 - Coveralls