| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-08-01 | |||
| 15:13:47 | efried | ^ use case for truly ad hoc traits even in a "cattle" environment. | |
| 15:16:25 | Sundar | efried and all: A process question: how can we ensure that we have got all requirements and that the next round of spec updates shall be adequate to start implementation for Stein? We had a bunch of plans for Rocky and we want to ensure they are delivered in Stein. Open to ideas! | |
| 15:16:54 | efried | Sundar: If you solve that one, you get a Nobel. | |
| 15:18:04 | Li_Liu | rofl | |
| 15:18:06 | efried | But the neat thing about our process is that it doesn't have to be perfect and fully-formed the first time around. | |
| 15:18:29 | efried | You put out *something* and then improve on it incrementally. | |
| 15:18:47 | efried | Surely you didn't think you were going to be done after one release. | |
| 15:18:49 | Li_Liu | workable -> usable | |
| 15:20:31 | Sundar | :) Shall we define a date before Stein's last spec approval date, by which time we can review and approve the needed Cyborg specs, and get started on implementation after that? | |
| 15:21:23 | Sundar | If any stakeholder wants an update after that, we can address that in T release | |
| 15:22:14 | Sundar | Oct 22-26 is Stein Milestone 1. | |
| 15:22:24 | Sundar | That is 3 months away | |
| 15:22:51 | Sundar | I suspect we can get the specs done in 1 month if we put our collective minds to it. Comments? | |
| 15:23:56 | efried | Just to level set, a statement like ^ is true in isolation, but you can't guarantee that all the stakeholders will have the time to dedicate to it to make that timeline feasible. | |
| 15:24:09 | efried | That said, I will do what I can to carve out the time. | |
| 15:24:52 | Sundar | Thanks, Eric. | |
| 15:25:35 | Sundar | To elaborate, if we wait until Oct end, we get very little time for implementation given that Dec and 1st half Jan are usually in holiday mode | |
| 15:26:12 | Sundar | Anyways, I'll take an AR to read the spec you mentioned, and update the specs on traits etc. | |
| 15:26:30 | xinran__ | So did we have a solution about how to map function uuid to name, or other things like that? | |
| 15:27:16 | Sundar | On UUID/name maps, whether that should come from the bitstream developer or the operator is an open question. The UUID itself comes the bitstream developer | |
| 15:28:01 | Sundar | If the driver is going to define traits, that is another wrinkle because the driver comes from the device vendor, which is yet another role | |
| 15:28:50 | Sundar | So, we need to have some input on how people use this in practice -- feedback needed from operators, bitstream developers etc. | |
| 15:29:39 | Sundar | I think this needs to be solved -- we should go to names, but any premature move before people understand and use Cyborg may require fixing later -- and that can be messy with upgrade issues wtc | |
| 15:32:21 | Sundar | Can we stick to UUIDs for now, and take up the name translation in subsequent discussion? That is the lowest common denominator anyway. | |
| 15:33:40 | efried | sorry, uuids/names for what specifically? | |
| 15:33:41 | xinran__ | Is it possible to translate the uuid to name in cyborg according to the data structure got by driver? | |
| 15:33:48 | Li_Liu | sure, that requires less modifications in the future I think | |
| 15:35:07 | Li_Liu | xinran__, those uuid are reported by drivers, Cyborg needs to track them | |
| 15:35:11 | Sundar | Xinran: as I explained, we have to ask should define function names. The driver comes from a device vendor (like Intel/Xilinx) -- they may not know anything about a specific function developed by a third party | |
| 15:35:14 | Li_Liu | Sundar, am i right? | |
| 15:36:08 | Sundar | Li_Liu: the UUIDs are reported by drivers, based on what they discover from the device itself. | |
| 15:36:20 | Sundar | However, where does the name came from? | |
| 15:36:38 | xinran__ | Yes that’s the problem | |
| 15:36:54 | Li_Liu | I believe name should also reported by driver | |
| 15:37:31 | Li_Liu | driver should know the name, and report them to Cyborg | |
| 15:37:47 | Sundar | There are two options: have the bitstream developer define an optional name (the current metadata spec already provides for it), or have the cloud operator define a UUID/name map like Shaohe mentioned | |
| 15:37:52 | xinran__ | How does driver know the name? | |
| 15:37:56 | Sundar | Both have their pros and cons. | |
| 15:39:27 | Sundar | The driver does not know any function names in the general case. If the driver itself is involved in programming a bitstream and the bitstream metadata has a name, well and good. But, the device may be pre-programmed or the bitstream many not have that metadata | |
| 15:39:44 | Li_Liu | driver gets the name from either: 1. device information read from hardware. 2. When loading a bitstream, driver can decode the name from the image file | |
| 15:39:52 | dolpher | sundar: operator doest define name, they should got name from vendor, and put them into the mapping file | |
| 15:40:28 | dolpher | so agent or driver can read it then update to trait | |
| 15:40:44 | Sundar | Li_Liu: Device info from hardware does not include function names today, for any major vendor AFAIK | |
| 15:41:08 | Sundar | Dolpher: which vendor? Bitstream developer or device vendor? | |
| 15:41:21 | Sundar | Device vendors would not know about function names at all | |
| 15:41:27 | Li_Liu | Sundar, I know, this is totally up to vendors | |
| 15:41:27 | dolpher | bitsteam vendor | |
| 15:42:24 | Sundar | Bitstream developers can define an optional name like I said -- it is already there in the spec today. However, that may not be unique! Two different bitstreams can both say they are doing gzip | |
| 15:42:45 | efried | is that a bad thing? | |
| 15:43:05 | xinran__ | Li_Liu: I think the option2 is better, when it is a pre preprogrammed card, can we get the name? | |
| 15:44:27 | Li_Liu | xinran__ if it's pre-programmed card, it's driver's job to figure out what to report | |
| 15:45:35 | Li_Liu | I mean, using a pre-programmed card is almost equivalent to using a ASIC chip | |
| 15:45:45 | wangzhh | Li_Liu, can driver collect the info 'name'? | |
| 15:46:27 | Li_Liu | imagine the case when a ASIC card is used | |
| 15:46:54 | Li_Liu | it has to have a dedicated driver to discovery+report | |
| 15:47:22 | Li_Liu | lol. there your go :) | |
| 15:48:54 | xinran__ | So you mean each preprogrammed card need a dedicated driver? | |
| 15:50:19 | Sundar | Probably the practical way out is to have the operator define the map. But that means everytime a new bitstream gets uploaded or the operator updates a pre-programmed card, the map has to be updated. This can probably be automated. We should probably let operators get the hang of Cyborg before imposing new workflows on them. | |
| 15:51:03 | Li_Liu | if you really wanna do that. it's driver's job to figure out the initial state of the card (which includes name as one of the initial information) | |
| 15:52:49 | Sundar | I need to drop out in 5 min. | |
| 15:53:30 | Sundar | I will update the specs. Please LMK what else do you think is missing or needs to be added to the specs. | |
| 15:53:56 | efried | Sundar: Please add me as a reviewer to any specs I'm not already on that you think I need to see. | |
| 15:54:04 | Li_Liu | I have to drop too. | |
| 15:54:15 | Li_Liu | Let's wrap up | |
| 15:54:17 | Sundar | efried: Absolutely | |
| 15:54:19 | Sundar | Li_Liu: Can we make it a standing agenda item to ask for spec reviews, so we can close this quickly? | |
| 15:54:32 | Li_Liu | ok | |
| 15:55:47 | Li_Liu | #todo add spec review as a standing agenda for future irc meetings | |
| 15:55:57 | Li_Liu | #endmeeting | |
| 15:56:00 | openstack | Meeting ended Wed Aug 1 15:55:57 2018 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 15:56:01 | openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_cyborg/2018/openstack_cyborg.2018-08-01-14.11.html | |
| 15:56:02 | openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_cyborg/2018/openstack_cyborg.2018-08-01-14.11.txt | |
| 15:56:04 | openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_cyborg/2018/openstack_cyborg.2018-08-01-14.11.log.html | |
| 15:56:11 | Sundar | Thanks, Li_Liu! | |
| 15:56:16 | Li_Liu | Thanks a lot guys | |
| 15:56:24 | Li_Liu | Have a great nite/day | |
| 15:56:40 | wangzhh | Bye. | |
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-08-02 | |||
| 02:19:40 | openstackgerrit | wangzhh proposed openstack/python-cyborgclient master: Add filter to list https://review.openstack.org/586916 | |
| 02:36:39 | openstackgerrit | wangzhh proposed openstack/python-cyborgclient master: Add filter to list https://review.openstack.org/586916 | |
| 02:51:51 | openstackgerrit | Li Liu proposed openstack/cyborg master: Added rest API for FPGA programming https://review.openstack.org/579315 | |
| 03:02:32 | openstackgerrit | wu.chunyang proposed openstack/python-cyborgclient master: update wrong link https://review.openstack.org/588125 | |
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-08-03 | |||
| 09:12:04 | openstackgerrit | YumengBao proposed openstack/cyborg master: Docs: Autogenerate config documentation https://review.openstack.org/588480 | |
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-08-04 | |||
| 03:01:45 | openstackgerrit | JiangGuocai proposed openstack/cyborg master: Add HPTS driver, (HPTS: High Precision Time Synhronization cards) https://review.openstack.org/586994 | |
| 03:50:44 | openstackgerrit | JiangGuocai proposed openstack/cyborg master: Add HPTS driver, (HPTS: High Precision Time Synhronization cards) https://review.openstack.org/586994 | |
| 08:51:02 | openstackgerrit | Hongbo_Zhao proposed openstack/cyborg master: Add interface for update flash with FPGA FIM image https://review.openstack.org/588882 | |
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-08-05 | |||
| 02:35:14 | openstackgerrit | Li Liu proposed openstack/cyborg master: Added rest API for FPGA programming https://review.openstack.org/579315 | |
| 03:20:15 | openstackgerrit | Li Liu proposed openstack/cyborg master: Added rest API for FPGA programming https://review.openstack.org/579315 | |
| 23:46:49 | openstackgerrit | JiangGuocai proposed openstack/cyborg master: Add HPTS driver, (HPTS: High Precision Time Synhronization cards) https://review.openstack.org/586994 | |
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-08-06 | |||
| 01:30:19 | openstackgerrit | Hongbo_Zhao proposed openstack/cyborg master: Add interface for update flash with FPGA FIM image https://review.openstack.org/588882 | |
| 04:49:15 | openstackgerrit | Li Liu proposed openstack/cyborg master: Added rest API for FPGA programming https://review.openstack.org/579315 | |
| 06:23:44 | openstackgerrit | Hongbo_Zhao proposed openstack/cyborg master: Add interface for update flash with FPGA FIM image https://review.openstack.org/588882 | |
| 13:02:19 | openstackgerrit | JiangGuocai proposed openstack/cyborg master: Add HPTS driver, (HPTS: High Precision Time Synhronization cards) https://review.openstack.org/586994 | |
| 13:13:27 | openstackgerrit | JiangGuocai proposed openstack/cyborg master: Add HPTS driver, (HPTS: High Precision Time Synhronization cards) https://review.openstack.org/586994 | |
| 13:52:37 | shaohe_feng | Hi everyone | |
| 13:52:45 | shaohe_feng | we will hold a zoom meeting today. | |
| 13:53:01 | shaohe_feng | #link we will hold a zoom meeting today. | |
| 13:53:31 | shaohe_feng | #link https://zoom.us/j/236172152 | |
| 14:01:13 | edleafe | shaohe_feng_: I'm curious - why the switch to zoom? I would have thought that with so many non-native English speakers that IRC would be better | |
| 14:07:06 | shaohe_feng_ | edleafe: It is an English zoom meeting. | |
| 14:08:14 | shaohe_feng_ | #startmeeting openstack-cyborg-driver | |