Add AEP for restoring selector support to VPA

[msudheendra-cflt]

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature
/kind api-change

What this PR does / why we need it:

Created as a follow-up of #8848. This is an AEP for supporting VPA for heterogenous workloads (such as leader/follower)

[k8s-ci-robot]

Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @msudheendra-cflt!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/autoscaler 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/autoscaler has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @msudheendra-cflt. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a github.com member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: msudheendra-cflt
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign towca for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• vertical-pod-autoscaler/enhancements/OWNERS

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

[k8s-triage-robot]

This PR may require API review.

If so, when the changes are ready, complete the pre-review checklist and request an API review.

Status of requested reviews is tracked in the API Review project.

[iamzili]

First of all thanks for the AEP! I think it is important to start a discussion around workloads that have heterogeneous resource requirements under the same controller.

we already have one related AEP that tackles Daemonsets: AEP-7942: Vertical Pod Autoscaling for Daemonsets with Heterogeneous Resource Requirements. This proposal could focus on Deployments and Statefulsets, which I believe is its intention

From reading this AEP, it appears to propose solving vertical autoscaling for workloads that use the leader election pattern. The proposed solution assumes that pods under a single controller are labeled by another controller based on which pod is the leader. I think a better approach (or the first use case to address) would be to watch Kubernetes Lease objects directly

At the moment the intent of this AEP seems to be limited to cases where the leader election pattern is used for Deployments/StatefulSets. It would be great to hear what other use cases could lead to heterogeneous resource requirements within the same workload. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of many others as I mostly deal with workloads that are accessed via a Kubernetes Service.

[iamzili]

I think the AEP title should change to reflect that this proposal aims to improve/solve vertical autoscaling for heterogeneous workloads when Deployments and StatefulSets controllers are used. Restoring label selector support is only one part of the solution.

so please make the intention of the AEP in its title more explicit, thanks!