Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-cyborg - 2019-02-27
02:59:52 Li_Liu Hi Coco
02:59:53 Kevin_Zheng o/
02:59:58 Li_Liu Hi guys
03:00:04 wangzhh Hi all.
03:00:13 Li_Liu let's wait for sundar for a bit
03:02:08 Li_Liu #startmeeting openstack-cyborg
03:02:09 openstack Meeting started Wed Feb 27 03:02:08 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is Li_Liu. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
03:02:10 openstack Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
03:02:12 openstack The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_cyborg'
03:02:16 Li_Liu Let's get started
03:02:24 Li_Liu Let's get started
03:02:31 Li_Liu #topic Roll Call
03:02:46 Li_Liu #info Li_Liu
03:02:53 Sundar #info Sundar
03:02:54 wangzhh #info wangzhh
03:03:28 yikun o/
03:03:29 Li_Liu #topic Status Tracking
03:03:42 Yumeng_ #info Yumeng
03:03:48 Yumeng_ hi all
03:03:51 Li_Liu Hi yumeng
03:04:02 Li_Liu I saw coco just committed the OVO patch
03:04:07 Li_Liu thanks a lot coco
03:04:08 Li_Liu let'
03:04:17 Li_Liu let's try to merge it asap
03:04:41 Li_Liu So that xinran and I can start working on the conductor
03:04:54 wangzhh Cool.
03:05:27 Li_Liu Is Sundar here?
03:05:38 Coco_gao Still, I got something to discuss with Sundar.
03:05:39 Sundar Li_Liu: Yes
03:05:46 Sundar I agree
03:05:49 Coco_gao Hi Sundar
03:05:55 Sundar Hi Coco_gao
03:06:06 Li_Liu Sundar, if we wanna get a working cyborg-nova integration
03:06:14 Coco_gao #info Coco_gao
03:06:19 Li_Liu can we start something now
03:06:20 Li_Liu ?
03:06:32 Coco_gao I think so
03:07:14 Sundar Li_Liu: I think it is a long shot. It has got some review, but we cannot expect the Nova side to remain as is after March 8, as it goes through reviews
03:07:33 Sundar So, the details of the APIs would change, even if the overall form does not
03:07:54 Sundar i.e. we may still have create ARQ, ind ARQ etc. But the API signatures may change
03:08:02 Sundar which means versioning it again
03:08:10 Sundar *bind ARQ
03:08:14 xinranwang Hi all, sorry for late
03:08:54 Li_Liu can we go ahead with a patched based implementation?
03:09:11 Li_Liu so that we can demo this in the summit
03:09:14 Sundar LiLiu, Coco_gao, all: Please do review the CYborg pilot code and Nova patches. That will at least reduce the chances that we get surprised later
03:09:33 Li_Liu and apply later changes after we finalize thing with nova
03:09:50 Coco_gao Ok, I will.
03:10:00 wangzhh OK, sundar.
03:10:13 Li_Liu Sundar, I will review after get in the conductor code :)
03:10:25 Sundar Li_Liu: I have plans for a demo with the patches. I am working on getting resource commitments within my co.
03:10:59 Sundar I think we can do a demo, even if it is not in the form that will finally merge
03:11:07 Li_Liu ok
03:11:10 Li_Liu sounds good
03:11:12 Coco_gao I will fix the unit test part.
03:12:34 Coco_gao Li_Liu, as for the conductor diff, feel free to discuss with us.
03:12:52 Li_Liu Coco_gao
03:13:07 Li_Liu sure, that part is owned by xinran and I
03:13:20 Coco_gao Sundar, as for my new driver ovo, I still got something to discuss with you.
03:13:45 Coco_gao can the attach_handles have same attach_info, but the attach_type is different?
03:13:54 Li_Liu xinranwang, I think we don't really need 2 people working on it
03:13:59 Sundar Coco_gao: Sure. Do you want to do that here, or do you prefer Zoom?
03:14:15 Li_Liu do you have some cycles during the day?
03:14:33 Coco_gao Sundar, maybe zoom or Email
03:14:41 Sundar Coco_gao: attach_type is 'PCI', 'mediated_device', etc. SO, if the types are different ,the info will be totally different
03:15:40 xinranwang Li_Liu: yes, I agree. I can take over this part if needed
03:15:48 Sundar E.g. For PCI, attach_info is BDF: {"domain": "0", bud: "5E", ... }
03:16:09 Sundar For mediated devices, it will be a UUID that is dynamically created
03:16:13 Sundar Coco_gao: Sure. Please feel free to shoot an email, and I can also send a zoom invite
03:16:26 Li_Liu xinranwang, sure. do you have eta for it?
03:16:27 wangzhh Sundar, so one deployable can report 2 or more attach_handle?
03:16:27 Coco_gao Sundar, thank you.
03:16:38 wangzhh *attach_handles
03:17:05 Sundar wangzhh: Yes. Today's products don't need it (at least for the ones I know about), but it is possible in the future
03:17:32 Coco_gao Sundar, pls help review the new drive ovo patch.
03:17:53 Sundar wangzhh: This is the situation when one deployable has 2 or more accelerator resources. Then each one needs a separate attach handle
03:18:05 Coco_gao I hope I didn't mis-understanding your design.
03:18:07 Sundar Coco_gao: On it after this meeting
03:18:42 xinranwang Li_Liu: what's eta?
03:19:30 Li_Liu "Estimated Time of Accomplishing"
03:19:34 Li_Liu :P
03:19:47 xinranwang lol
03:20:54 xinranwang Li_Liu: hmmm, i think i can start working on this once OVO part has done, and will submit at least one patch in the following week.
03:21:05 wangzhh Sundar: The 'accelerator resources' here meas vf or pf here?
03:21:37 Li_Liu Code freeze is next week
03:21:51 Sundar wangzhh: We have made a distinction between accelerator resources, which is just a number, from PF (controlpath_id) and VF (attach_handle)
03:22:09 Li_Liu wangzhh, do you have to wait for conductor code for your piece?
03:22:36 wangzhh Sundar: Got it.
03:23:15 wangzhh Li_liu: No, just the function name. I can hack it.
03:23:48 Li_Liu ok, let's get wangzhh and xinranwang's patch in before the code freeze
03:24:28 Sundar wangzhh: Good. If it helps, please see https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Anud3Qbcb0P3G245HpHduHhslx1MJljGD6wqPDy7o9E/edit#slide=id.g44d3e3519f_4_96
03:24:29 Li_Liu I might also fix the FPGA programming api as well. but that should be a minor change
03:24:42 Coco_gao Sundar, I think the original design is that attach_handle can be VF or PF, and controlpath_id is only used for identify a device? Do we change now?
03:24:55 wangzhh Sundar, Thx.
03:24:58 xinranwang Li_Liu: Ah yes, but conductor need to call ovo's function as I understood.
03:25:42 Li_Liu xinranwang, that's in coco's patch right?
03:26:08 Coco_gao The function in OVO is used for diff, I can add that part.
03:26:27 Sundar Coco_gao: No. We always had a distinction. In the link I posted earlier, the only change I made was to change the term 'DeviceID' to 'ControlPath_ID'
03:26:48 Sundar because we use the term 'device_id' in the db layer for something else
03:27:14 Li_Liu Coco_gao, do you need help for them?

Earlier   Later