| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-07-25 | |||
| 14:04:15 | Li_Liu | #info Li_Liu | |
| 14:04:34 | seungwook | Hi Li Liu | |
| 14:04:56 | Li_Liu | Hey Seungwook! welcome to the party | |
| 14:05:29 | seungwook | Hi xinran | |
| 14:06:06 | wangzhh | Hey Seungwook! Welcome! | |
| 14:06:23 | zhipeng | #topic Rocky Development Update | |
| 14:06:26 | seungwook | Thank wangzhh | |
| 14:06:36 | zhipeng | so the deadline we are facing this week | |
| 14:06:43 | zhipeng | is the client lib deadline | |
| 14:06:54 | seungwook | Ho vrv | |
| 14:07:05 | zhipeng | shaohe_feng how's the client side prepared ? Could we make it on time ? | |
| 14:08:33 | shaohe_feng | zhipeng, which more features should we add for the client? | |
| 14:08:38 | shaohe_feng | zhipeng, allocation? | |
| 14:08:59 | zhipeng | could we do basic CRUD ? | |
| 14:09:00 | shaohe_feng | zhipeng, unallocation? | |
| 14:09:04 | Li_Liu | Does fpga program count? | |
| 14:09:26 | Li_Liu | the program api should be ready this week | |
| 14:09:34 | shaohe_feng | zhipeng, we can only list accelerators | |
| 14:10:00 | Li_Liu | but calling the client part I am not sure | |
| 14:10:18 | zhipeng | i don't think we could have programming in client on time | |
| 14:10:29 | zhipeng | shaohe_feng, once coco and zhenghao's patch in | |
| 14:10:34 | Li_Liu | ok, as least the api part | |
| 14:10:42 | zhipeng | could we quickly add allocation and unallocation ? | |
| 14:10:45 | xinran__ | hi seungwook welcome | |
| 14:10:53 | zhipeng | in the most simple form, add to the db, remove from db | |
| 14:11:09 | shaohe_feng | zhipeng, if we want to let nova call cyborg. we do not need CRUD for accelerators. we need CRUD for deployables. | |
| 14:11:52 | Li_Liu | according to the discussion in here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cyborg-rocky-development | |
| 14:11:52 | seungwook | Thank xinran | |
| 14:12:43 | shaohe_feng | we can use the current PATCH deployable for allocation and unallocation | |
| 14:12:56 | shaohe_feng | but I do not think this is a good ideas. | |
| 14:13:19 | shaohe_feng | also do we need batch allocation? | |
| 14:13:59 | shaohe_feng | for example, a user want 3 deployables, can he call once allocation? | |
| 14:13:59 | zhipeng | which patch are you talking about ? | |
| 14:14:15 | wangzhh | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/584641/ Maybe this one. | |
| 14:14:20 | shaohe_feng | API part | |
| 14:14:39 | zhipeng | why is it not a good idea ? | |
| 14:14:58 | shaohe_feng | yes. | |
| 14:16:09 | shaohe_feng | IMHO, There should better be a explicit API for these two actions | |
| 14:16:33 | shaohe_feng | I also use PATCH for allocation and unallocation for my POC. | |
| 14:16:52 | shaohe_feng | just for I do not touch more cyborg code | |
| 14:17:25 | xinran__ | I think there should be an unified api which does allocation and unallocation | |
| 14:17:41 | zhipeng | xinran__ what do you mean by unified ? | |
| 14:17:50 | xinran__ | Instead of implementing in deployable api | |
| 14:17:52 | shaohe_feng | the PATCH method, it is for resource, not for collections. So it can not support batch allocation | |
| 14:17:53 | Coco | #info Coco | |
| 14:18:03 | Li_Liu | 1 api for both alloc and unalloc? | |
| 14:18:16 | xinran__ | I mean another independent api :) | |
| 14:18:27 | Coco | 2 independent api. | |
| 14:18:28 | xinran__ | #info xinran__ | |
| 14:18:57 | Li_Liu | shaohe_feng, i think as least there is no harm to have the PATCH method, even for long term | |
| 14:19:37 | shaohe_feng | #link https://github.com/shaohef/cyborg/commit/13cb904809376584f3cf78b7d7f120817d83c2ad | |
| 14:19:52 | shaohe_feng | this is a poc about half years ago | |
| 14:20:07 | Coco | patch method can keep, but patch can do many things, not only allocate or unallocate. | |
| 14:20:15 | shaohe_feng | I use it PATCH for unallocation | |
| 14:20:15 | zhipeng | I agree with Li_Liu's assessment, should be good at the moment | |
| 14:20:35 | shaohe_feng | curl -g -i -X PATCH http://localhost:6666/deployables/$UUID -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ | |
| 14:20:35 | shaohe_feng | -H "Accept: application/json" -H "X-Auth-Token: $(openstack token issue -f value -c id)" -d ' | |
| 14:20:35 | shaohe_feng | [ | |
| 14:20:35 | shaohe_feng | { "op": "replace", "path": "/instance_uuid", "value": null } | |
| 14:20:36 | shaohe_feng | ]' | |
| 14:21:06 | shaohe_feng | I agree we do not touch two many codes for cyborg at present. | |
| 14:22:31 | shaohe_feng | tiny change is OK for me as https://review.openstack.org/#/c/584641/ | |
| 14:22:51 | zhipeng | okey then let's wrap up zhenghao and coco's patch, and shaohe_feng could update the cyborgclient | |
| 14:23:08 | zhipeng | I will need to cut the final release for client on 27th | |
| 14:23:09 | wangzhh | So, everyone agree that we should have two another apis for allocate or unallocate? | |
| 14:23:20 | shaohe_feng | but we need dolpher/sunder or Li_Liu comments for it. | |
| 14:23:24 | wangzhh | and... | |
| 14:23:55 | shaohe_feng | we can not get the expect deployables. | |
| 14:24:13 | shaohe_feng | for we need more attributes. | |
| 14:24:28 | wangzhh | shaohe_feng, we can extend parameters if dolpher/sunder or Li_Liu have other comments. | |
| 14:24:49 | shaohe_feng | such as function ID/name and more | |
| 14:25:23 | Li_Liu | shaohe_feng so you want to add more fields in the table? | |
| 14:25:36 | wangzhh | API is stable. Just extend the filter for querying. | |
| 14:26:17 | wangzhh | Li_Liu, not db. It's for API. | |
| 14:26:45 | shaohe_feng | For example, I want a crypto FPGA(pre-pre-programmed) | |
| 14:26:45 | Li_Liu | adding fields should not affect api tho | |
| 14:27:17 | shaohe_feng | Yes. so you give the comments ASAP | |
| 14:27:37 | shaohe_feng | need just need experts comments | |
| 14:27:51 | zhipeng | Li_liu plz take a look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/584641/ | |
| 14:28:20 | zhipeng | and also coco's patch | |
| 14:28:22 | zhipeng | https://review.openstack.org/584296 | |
| 14:28:37 | zhipeng | Li_Liu if you are ok with it plz go head w+1 | |
| 14:28:44 | zhipeng | to land it | |
| 14:28:50 | shaohe_feng | As we have talked, it is easy to improve these patches, as your comments arrives. :) | |
| 14:29:46 | Li_Liu | I was looking as it | |
| 14:30:01 | Li_Liu | will provide comments in a bit | |
| 14:30:13 | shaohe_feng | Thanks. | |
| 14:30:27 | shaohe_feng | For sample scenarios | |
| 14:30:50 | shaohe_feng | There is a QAT and FPGA. | |
| 14:31:26 | shaohe_feng | the user want to cypto function. | |
| 14:32:11 | shaohe_feng | pre-programmed cypto FPGA | |
| 14:32:19 | shaohe_feng | how does he do? | |
| 14:33:03 | shaohe_feng | needs host, devices_type, function_type. | |
| 14:33:15 | shaohe_feng | also the numbers? | |
| 14:33:29 | Li_Liu | one way is to use add_attribute() api in Deployable | |
| 14:33:39 | shaohe_feng | maybe he want to 2 pre-programmed cypto FPGAs | |
| 14:33:57 | shaohe_feng | Li_Liu, I did it as you said. | |
| 14:34:02 | Coco | yes, I think number is necessary. | |
| 14:34:17 | Li_Liu | what kind of numbers? | |
| 14:34:23 | Li_Liu | performance kpi? | |