From 5a5c96b2ccfc2f8114e676ecf24148465cbac800 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Meha Bhalodiya Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:11:15 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] Add tooltip for affinity --- .../scheduling-eviction/pod-priority-preemption.md | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/en/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/pod-priority-preemption.md b/content/en/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/pod-priority-preemption.md index 112e244f46..fe49f2acd4 100644 --- a/content/en/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/pod-priority-preemption.md +++ b/content/en/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/pod-priority-preemption.md @@ -252,12 +252,12 @@ Even so, the answer to the preceding question must be yes. If the answer is no, the Node is not considered for preemption. {{< /note >}} -If a pending Pod has inter-pod affinity to one or more of the lower-priority -Pods on the Node, the inter-Pod affinity rule cannot be satisfied in the absence -of those lower-priority Pods. In this case, the scheduler does not preempt any -Pods on the Node. Instead, it looks for another Node. The scheduler might find a -suitable Node or it might not. There is no guarantee that the pending Pod can be -scheduled. +If a pending Pod has inter-pod {{< glossary_tooltip text="affinity" term_id="affinity" >}} +to one or more of the lower-priority Pods on the Node, the inter-Pod affinity +rule cannot be satisfied in the absence of those lower-priority Pods. In this case, +the scheduler does not preempt any Pods on the Node. Instead, it looks for another +Node. The scheduler might find a suitable Node or it might not. There is no +guarantee that the pending Pod can be scheduled. Our recommended solution for this problem is to create inter-Pod affinity only towards equal or higher priority Pods.