### What happened?

I managed to reproduce [a bug that went stale](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/112573) on the latest main branch. And also noticed a new situation that may trigger the bug.

The ```ImageLocality``` plugin may give a same score to nodes in different situations.

The related code:
```go
imageScores := sumImageScores(nodeInfo, pod, totalNumNodes, logger, nodeName)
score := calculatePriority(imageScores, len(pod.Spec.InitContainers)+len(pod.Spec.Containers), logger)

func calculatePriority(sumScores int64, numContainers int, logger klog.Logger) int64 {
	maxThreshold := maxContainerThreshold * int64(numContainers)
	if sumScores < minThreshold {
		sumScores = minThreshold
	} else if sumScores > maxThreshold {
		sumScores = maxThreshold
	}
	return framework.MaxNodeScore * (sumScores - minThreshold) / (maxThreshold - minThreshold)
}
```

**This will happen when the a node has a fully pulled image that is relatively small, another doesn't** (But still need time to pull, in this case image size is about 70MB). 

The node with fully pulled image has an original ```sumScores``` too close to ```minThreshold```, and the other node without that image has an original ```sumScores``` = 0. So after clip the difference of two nodes' ```sumScores``` is relatively small compared to ```maxThreshold - minThreshold```. 

Then the plugin calculate the score, and this will happen: For the first node's score ```= 100 * 0.0001 = 0```, for the second node' score ```= 100 * 0 = 0```. Resulting the same score even if the first node has fully pulled this image (about 70MB) and the second node hasn't.

---

**And I think this will also happen when a node has many relatively large image, another doesn't (the second also has some image but not as large as the first one).** Then the first node's ```sumScores``` is far more beyond ```maxThreshold```, and the second node's ```sumScores``` is just a little bit smaller than ```maxThreshold```. After clipping, the first node's ```sumScores```  becomes ```maxThreshold```.

Then the plugin calculate the score, and this will happen: For the first node's score ```= 100 * 1 = 100```, for the second node' score ```= 100 * 0.999 = 100```. Resulting the same score even if the first node has far more image than the second node.

### What did you expect to happen?

ImageLocality gives two nodes a different score.

### How can we reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible)?

I first create two nodes (worker1 with fully pulled image, and worker2 just start pulling), then apply a pod using the following specification. 
```yaml
apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
  name: pod3
spec:
  containers:
    - name: test-container
      image: gke.gcr.io/calico/cni:v3.23.1-gke.0
```

and here is the log (added some log to see what happened in image_locality):
```bash
[image_locality.go:68] "ImageScores" logger="Score.ImageLocality" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker" imageScores=25531886
[image_locality.go:93] "calculatePriority" logger="Score.ImageLocality" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker" minThreshold=24117248 maxThreshold=1048576000 framework.MaxNodeScore=100
[image_locality.go:68] "ImageScores" logger="Score.ImageLocality" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker2" imageScores=0
[image_locality.go:93] "calculatePriority" logger="Score.ImageLocality" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker2" minThreshold=24117248 maxThreshold=1048576000 framework.MaxNodeScore=100
[image_locality.go:112] ImageName="gke.gcr.io/calico/cni:v3.23.1-gke.0" Size="76595659" node="kind-worker"
...
[schedule_one.go:784] "Plugin scored node for pod" pod="default/nginx3" plugin="ImageLocality" node="kind-worker" score=0
...
[schedule_one.go:784] "Plugin scored node for pod" pod="default/nginx3" plugin="ImageLocality" node="kind-worker2" score=0
[schedule_one.go:851] "Calculated node's final score for pod" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker" score=492
[schedule_one.go:851] "Calculated node's final score for pod" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker2" score=492
```


### Anything else we need to know?

_No response_

### Kubernetes version

<details>

```console
$ kubectl version
# paste output here
```
Client Version: v1.29.1
Server Version: v1.30.0-

Actually this is reproduced on the latest main branch.
</details>


### Cloud provider

<details>

</details>


### OS version

<details>

```console
# On Linux:
$ cat /etc/os-release
# paste output here
$ uname -a
# paste output here

# On Windows:
C:\> wmic os get Caption, Version, BuildNumber, OSArchitecture
# paste output here
```

</details>


### Install tools

<details>

</details>


### Container runtime (CRI) and version (if applicable)

<details>

</details>


### Related plugins (CNI, CSI, ...) and versions (if applicable)

<details>

</details>

scheduler: ```ImageLocality``` gives nodes in different situation the same score
This is a GitHub Issue
repo:kubernetes
owner:kubernetes
Title : scheduler: ```ImageLocality``` gives nodes in different situation the same score
Issue date:

--- start body ---
### What happened?

I managed to reproduce [a bug that went stale](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/112573) on the latest main branch. And also noticed a new situation that may trigger the bug.

The ```ImageLocality``` plugin may give a same score to nodes in different situations.

The related code:
```go
imageScores := sumImageScores(nodeInfo, pod, totalNumNodes, logger, nodeName)
score := calculatePriority(imageScores, len(pod.Spec.InitContainers)+len(pod.Spec.Containers), logger)

func calculatePriority(sumScores int64, numContainers int, logger klog.Logger) int64 {
	maxThreshold := maxContainerThreshold * int64(numContainers)
	if sumScores < minThreshold {
		sumScores = minThreshold
	} else if sumScores > maxThreshold {
		sumScores = maxThreshold
	}
	return framework.MaxNodeScore * (sumScores - minThreshold) / (maxThreshold - minThreshold)
}
```

**This will happen when the a node has a fully pulled image that is relatively small, another doesn't** (But still need time to pull, in this case image size is about 70MB). 

The node with fully pulled image has an original ```sumScores``` too close to ```minThreshold```, and the other node without that image has an original ```sumScores``` = 0. So after clip the difference of two nodes' ```sumScores``` is relatively small compared to ```maxThreshold - minThreshold```. 

Then the plugin calculate the score, and this will happen: For the first node's score ```= 100 * 0.0001 = 0```, for the second node' score ```= 100 * 0 = 0```. Resulting the same score even if the first node has fully pulled this image (about 70MB) and the second node hasn't.

---

**And I think this will also happen when a node has many relatively large image, another doesn't (the second also has some image but not as large as the first one).** Then the first node's ```sumScores``` is far more beyond ```maxThreshold```, and the second node's ```sumScores``` is just a little bit smaller than ```maxThreshold```. After clipping, the first node's ```sumScores```  becomes ```maxThreshold```.

Then the plugin calculate the score, and this will happen: For the first node's score ```= 100 * 1 = 100```, for the second node' score ```= 100 * 0.999 = 100```. Resulting the same score even if the first node has far more image than the second node.

### What did you expect to happen?

ImageLocality gives two nodes a different score.

### How can we reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible)?

I first create two nodes (worker1 with fully pulled image, and worker2 just start pulling), then apply a pod using the following specification. 
```yaml
apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
  name: pod3
spec:
  containers:
    - name: test-container
      image: gke.gcr.io/calico/cni:v3.23.1-gke.0
```

and here is the log (added some log to see what happened in image_locality):
```bash
[image_locality.go:68] "ImageScores" logger="Score.ImageLocality" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker" imageScores=25531886
[image_locality.go:93] "calculatePriority" logger="Score.ImageLocality" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker" minThreshold=24117248 maxThreshold=1048576000 framework.MaxNodeScore=100
[image_locality.go:68] "ImageScores" logger="Score.ImageLocality" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker2" imageScores=0
[image_locality.go:93] "calculatePriority" logger="Score.ImageLocality" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker2" minThreshold=24117248 maxThreshold=1048576000 framework.MaxNodeScore=100
[image_locality.go:112] ImageName="gke.gcr.io/calico/cni:v3.23.1-gke.0" Size="76595659" node="kind-worker"
...
[schedule_one.go:784] "Plugin scored node for pod" pod="default/nginx3" plugin="ImageLocality" node="kind-worker" score=0
...
[schedule_one.go:784] "Plugin scored node for pod" pod="default/nginx3" plugin="ImageLocality" node="kind-worker2" score=0
[schedule_one.go:851] "Calculated node's final score for pod" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker" score=492
[schedule_one.go:851] "Calculated node's final score for pod" pod="default/nginx3" node="kind-worker2" score=492
```


### Anything else we need to know?

_No response_

### Kubernetes version

<details>

```console
$ kubectl version
# paste output here
```
Client Version: v1.29.1
Server Version: v1.30.0-

Actually this is reproduced on the latest main branch.
</details>


### Cloud provider

<details>

</details>


### OS version

<details>

```console
# On Linux:
$ cat /etc/os-release
# paste output here
$ uname -a
# paste output here

# On Windows:
C:\> wmic os get Caption, Version, BuildNumber, OSArchitecture
# paste output here
```

</details>


### Install tools

<details>

</details>


### Container runtime (CRI) and version (if applicable)

<details>

</details>


### Related plugins (CNI, CSI, ...) and versions (if applicable)

<details>

</details>

--- end body ---

The issue with the ImageLocality plugin in Kubernetes allows for nodes in different states to receive the same scheduling score, which can lead to suboptimal scheduling decisions. This occurs when the scoring mechanism does not adequately differentiate between nodes based on their image pull status, potentially allowing a node with a fully pulled image to be treated the same as a node that is still pulling the image. This could lead to performance issues and inefficient resource utilization.