| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-06-06 | |||
| 14:20:28 | Sundar | Xinran, can you clarify which spec says Nova compute does or should call into Cyborg agent? | |
| 14:21:00 | xinran__ | Let me find it | |
| 14:21:26 | zhipeng | okey for the spec itself in the current shape | |
| 14:21:30 | zhipeng | everyone happy with it ? | |
| 14:22:53 | Sundar | zhipeng, the present scheme is not ideal, but I have no objections, since I know it is a priority for others. :) | |
| 14:23:08 | Sundar | We can improve upon it over time | |
| 14:23:17 | zhipeng | Sundar agree :) | |
| 14:23:22 | shaohe_feng | IMO, cyborg can do lazy quota. | |
| 14:23:32 | zhipeng | so then let's mark the spec ok to go | |
| 14:23:41 | Sundar | Agreed | |
| 14:23:42 | xinran__ | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/566798/5/doc/specs/rocky/compute-node.rst | |
| 14:23:51 | zhipeng | #action quota spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560285/ ready | |
| 14:24:22 | xinran__ | What to you mean lazy quota shaohe_feng | |
| 14:25:04 | shaohe_feng | which means, even scheduler pass, cyborg will still refuse accelerator quest for quota failed. | |
| 14:25:06 | Sundar | Xinran, compute-node (os-acc) spec does not say that Nova compute will call directly into Cyborg agent. It says that Nova compute should call into os-acc, which should call into Cyborg agent. | |
| 14:25:37 | shaohe_feng | os-acc can call cyborg agent? | |
| 14:26:13 | zhipeng | guys this is another problem | |
| 14:26:18 | zhipeng | let's move on :) | |
| 14:26:25 | zhipeng | we have limited time for a lot of specs | |
| 14:26:36 | shaohe_feng | Does that means nova will call cyborg agent without api? | |
| 14:26:55 | zhipeng | moving on | |
| 14:27:10 | zhipeng | Li Liu's two patches on metadata and programming | |
| 14:27:18 | shaohe_feng | xinran__, lazy quota, just performance issue. | |
| 14:27:38 | xinran__ | shaohe_feng: ok got it | |
| 14:27:51 | zhipeng | #link https://review.openstack.org/558265 | |
| 14:28:03 | zhipeng | any further comment on the metadata spec ? | |
| 14:28:24 | xinran__ | Sundar: the “directly” I mean is not pass api layer | |
| 14:28:46 | Sundar | I thought Li Liu added a function name. Looking for it | |
| 14:29:05 | zhipeng | also Melissa | |
| 14:29:21 | zhipeng | @Guest24200 | |
| 14:29:31 | zhipeng | has Xilinx team also went over the spec ? | |
| 14:32:21 | zhipeng | Sundar has Li Liu addressed your comment ? | |
| 14:32:28 | NokMikeR | what bootstraps the driver instance in the first place? e.g if a driver is requested that may require an additional tool to already be present like a driver deamon from the fpga vendor to be already in place. | |
| 14:32:42 | Sundar | During last spec day, Li Liu and I agreed to add a function name to the bitstream spec as an optional property. #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-cyborg/%23openstack-cyborg.2018-05-09.log.html#t2018-05-09T19:00:22 | |
| 14:33:37 | Sundar | This is also documented in the scheldung spec #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/554717/ | |
| 14:33:43 | Sundar | *scheduling | |
| 14:34:06 | Sundar | Can we get that addressed? | |
| 14:34:26 | zhipeng | sure | |
| 14:34:53 | zhipeng | #action metadata spec https://review.openstack.org/558265 to add a function name | |
| 14:35:16 | zhipeng | other than that there should be no problems right ? | |
| 14:36:20 | Sundar | Zhipeng, yes. Thanks | |
| 14:36:36 | zhipeng | sounds great :) | |
| 14:37:06 | zhipeng | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/559395/ | |
| 14:37:10 | zhipeng | programming | |
| 14:37:36 | zhipeng | i think other than Zuul, we should be happy about this now | |
| 14:37:40 | zhipeng | :P | |
| 14:38:33 | Sundar | I don't see any issue with the basics. We don't have an end-to-end flow that uses this. I guess this is meant to be a standalone API? | |
| 14:39:43 | zhipeng | yep | |
| 14:40:32 | Sundar | OK. We can tweak this later as needed, when we need to define end-to-end flows. With that understanding, we can approve it as it stands. Sounds good? | |
| 14:41:06 | zhipeng | shaohe_feng and others ? | |
| 14:41:21 | zhipeng | at least from the review I see Li Liu had addressed all the comments | |
| 14:42:12 | shaohe_feng | zhipeng, OK, it looks good for me | |
| 14:43:33 | zhipeng | cool | |
| 14:43:46 | zhipeng | #action programming spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/559395/ ready to go | |
| 14:44:40 | zhipeng | okey let's go to Sundar's four spec | |
| 14:44:53 | zhipeng | Sundar which one do you think is ready to go ? | |
| 14:45:03 | Sundar | All of them :) | |
| 14:45:17 | zhipeng | haha great | |
| 14:45:20 | Sundar | I will still request Nova folks to do a +1 on scheduling spec. | |
| 14:45:37 | zhipeng | yes that one has gone through a lot | |
| 14:45:48 | Sundar | For os-acc also, we should probably get Nova ok, right? | |
| 14:46:42 | shaohe_feng | os-acc will call cyborg-agent? | |
| 14:46:55 | zhipeng | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/566798/ | |
| 14:46:55 | shaohe_feng | and nova will call os-acc？ | |
| 14:46:59 | zhipeng | this one right ? | |
| 14:47:23 | Sundar | zhipeng, yes | |
| 14:47:25 | zhipeng | shaohe_feng I think nova-compute calls os-acc to do the attach/detach | |
| 14:47:58 | zhipeng | but I think the original goal of os-acc is to serve as a library | |
| 14:48:06 | Sundar | shaohe: Yes, as zhipeng says. | |
| 14:48:31 | zhipeng | Sundar does nova-compute also calls os-brick or os-vif ? | |
| 14:48:32 | Sundar | zhipeng, yes. It is still a library that Cyborg provides, like os-vif for Neutron | |
| 14:49:20 | Sundar | zhipeng, yes, nova compute calls into os-vif -- plug(), unplug() API | |
| 14:49:25 | Sundar | I'll try to get a link | |
| 14:49:37 | shaohe_feng | zhipeng, so that means nova will call agent by attach/detach directly? | |
| 14:50:05 | shaohe_feng | is there no race for cyborg API and os-acc? | |
| 14:50:29 | zhipeng | i think for the nova scenario, which means accelerator attachment for the VM | |
| 14:50:52 | zhipeng | the attach should be issued by nova-compute | |
| 14:50:58 | zhipeng | however for the baremetal usecase | |
| 14:51:07 | zhipeng | it should be gone through cyborg-api | |
| 14:51:08 | shaohe_feng | Sundar, os-vif plug API call nuetron agent? | |
| 14:51:50 | zhipeng | i think we should target os-acc for VM usecase for Rocky | |
| 14:52:12 | zhipeng | which means os-acc alls the cyborg-agent directly to call upon the driver | |
| 14:52:26 | Sundar | That is my understanding. We can double check. But, please note that the spec doesn't make implementation commitments yet. We can implement it the same way as os-vif | |
| 14:52:28 | zhipeng | (and the driver invoke the bus protocols) | |
| 14:52:54 | Sundar | zhipeng: Agreed :) | |
| 14:52:56 | shaohe_feng | edleafe, os-vif can call neutron agent directly by RPC by-pass API? | |
| 14:53:00 | Sundar | shaohe: I think you may be referring to scenarios like the one where Cyborg API is called to program a region, which is already in use? | |
| 14:53:42 | zhipeng | i think the attach/detach does not make assumption on the operation | |
| 14:53:47 | wangzhh | Hi， I'm confused. Could anyone explain. When nova-compute call cyborg by os-acc, It will call by http(API) or just by rpc(message queen)? | |
| 14:53:50 | zhipeng | no matter a region needs to be programmed or not | |
| 14:54:02 | zhipeng | if attach, it presumes the device is ready | |
| 14:54:33 | wangzhh | Or both of them? | |
| 14:54:35 | zhipeng | wangzhh the current thinking is via rpc to call cyborg-agent in order to get to the driver | |
| 14:54:47 | zhipeng | no api involved in this scenario | |
| 14:55:21 | wangzhh | OK. Thx. | |
| 14:55:29 | Sundar | Yes, agreed with zhipeng | |
| 14:55:48 | Sundar | Here are the interfaces exposed by os-vif: https://github.com/openstack/os-vif/blob/master/os_vif/__init__.py | |
| 14:56:04 | Sundar | I will try to locate how nova compute calls it | |
| 14:56:04 | zhipeng | it means that this is a VM related operation and we assume the Nova got the necessary previllage | |
| 14:56:30 | zhipeng | we could focus on the details later, whether the lib itself could be called | |