From fb937306e498d6fd238e388058aa332c59d7f4cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: xin gu <418294249@qq.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 20:49:40 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] sync kube-scheduler taint-and-toleration
 topology-spread-constraints

---
 .../docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/kube-scheduler.md     | 2 +-
 .../concepts/scheduling-eviction/taint-and-toleration.md    | 4 ++--
 .../scheduling-eviction/topology-spread-constraints.md      | 6 +++---
 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/kube-scheduler.md b/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/kube-scheduler.md
index b419e20f5d..54f3307ecf 100644
--- a/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/kube-scheduler.md
+++ b/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/kube-scheduler.md
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ kube-scheduler 给一个 Pod 做调度选择时包含两个步骤：
 <!--
 The _filtering_ step finds the set of Nodes where it's feasible to
 schedule the Pod. For example, the PodFitsResources filter checks whether a
-candidate Node has enough available resource to meet a Pod's specific
+candidate Node has enough available resources to meet a Pod's specific
 resource requests. After this step, the node list contains any suitable
 Nodes; often, there will be more than one. If the list is empty, that
 Pod isn't (yet) schedulable.
diff --git a/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/taint-and-toleration.md b/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/taint-and-toleration.md
index 488b96e6a3..e419027a99 100644
--- a/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/taint-and-toleration.md
+++ b/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/taint-and-toleration.md
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ An empty `effect` matches all effects with key `key1`.
 {{< /note >}}
 
 <!--
-The above example used `effect` of `NoSchedule`. Alternatively, you can use `effect` of `PreferNoSchedule`.
+The above example used the `effect` of `NoSchedule`. Alternatively, you can use the `effect` of `PreferNoSchedule`.
 -->
 上述例子中 `effect` 使用的值为 `NoSchedule`，你也可以使用另外一个值 `PreferNoSchedule`。
 
@@ -389,7 +389,7 @@ are true. The following taints are built in:
  * `node.kubernetes.io/network-unavailable`: Node's network is unavailable.
  * `node.kubernetes.io/unschedulable`: Node is unschedulable.
  * `node.cloudprovider.kubernetes.io/uninitialized`: When the kubelet is started
-    with "external" cloud provider, this taint is set on a node to mark it
+    with an "external" cloud provider, this taint is set on a node to mark it
     as unusable. After a controller from the cloud-controller-manager initializes
     this node, the kubelet removes this taint.
 -->
diff --git a/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/topology-spread-constraints.md b/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/topology-spread-constraints.md
index ef6cf4e31b..3a3db98d46 100644
--- a/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/topology-spread-constraints.md
+++ b/content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/topology-spread-constraints.md
@@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ can use a manifest similar to:
 
 <!--
 From that manifest, `topologyKey: zone` implies the even distribution will only be applied
-to nodes that are labelled `zone: <any value>` (nodes that don't have a `zone` label
+to nodes that are labeled `zone: <any value>` (nodes that don't have a `zone` label
 are skipped). The field `whenUnsatisfiable: DoNotSchedule` tells the scheduler to let the
 incoming Pod stay pending if the scheduler can't find a way to satisfy the constraint.
 
@@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ There are some implicit conventions worth noting here:
   above example, if you remove the incoming Pod's labels, it can still be placed onto
   nodes in zone `B`, since the constraints are still satisfied. However, after that
   placement, the degree of imbalance of the cluster remains unchanged - it's still zone `A`
-  having 2 Pods labelled as `foo: bar`, and zone `B` having 1 Pod labelled as
+  having 2 Pods labeled as `foo: bar`, and zone `B` having 1 Pod labeled as
   `foo: bar`. If this is not what you expect, update the workload's
   `topologySpreadConstraints[*].labelSelector` to match the labels in the pod template.
 -->
@@ -981,7 +981,7 @@ section of the enhancement proposal about Pod topology spread constraints.
   because, in this case, those topology domains won't be considered until there is
   at least one node in them.
 
-  You can work around this by using an cluster autoscaling tool that is aware of
+  You can work around this by using a cluster autoscaling tool that is aware of
   Pod topology spread constraints and is also aware of the overall set of topology
   domains.
 -->