| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-cyborg - 2019-03-13 | |||
| 02:59:24 | shaohe_feng_ | hi all | |
| 02:59:35 | Coco_gao | hi shaohe | |
| 02:59:53 | shaohe_feng_ | Coco_gao: morning. | |
| 03:01:17 | Li_Liu | #startmeeting openstack-cyborg | |
| 03:01:18 | openstack | Meeting started Wed Mar 13 03:01:17 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is Li_Liu. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | |
| 03:01:19 | openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | |
| 03:01:21 | openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_cyborg' | |
| 03:01:24 | Li_Liu | Let's get started | |
| 03:01:30 | Li_Liu | #topic Roll Call | |
| 03:01:36 | Li_Liu | #info Li_Liu | |
| 03:01:48 | Coco_gao | #info Coco_gao | |
| 03:01:54 | xinranwang | #info xinranwang | |
| 03:02:18 | Li_Liu | are sundar and zhenghao here yet? | |
| 03:02:40 | Li_Liu | #topic Code Freeze Status Update | |
| 03:03:17 | Li_Liu | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open%20project:openstack/cyborg | |
| 03:03:21 | Coco_gao | I will update my patch according to the comments these two days. | |
| 03:03:38 | Li_Liu | Coco_gao, thanks | |
| 03:04:08 | Li_Liu | Why https://review.openstack.org/#/c/574075/ this one is not merged yet? | |
| 03:04:18 | Li_Liu | strange ><|| | |
| 03:04:52 | Coco_gao | That's depend on my patch | |
| 03:05:03 | Coco_gao | because my patch are not merged. | |
| 03:05:13 | zhipeng | Zuul not started | |
| 03:05:21 | Li_Liu | I see | |
| 03:06:33 | Li_Liu | By the hard dead line of code freeze, please add UT to the features you own | |
| 03:06:53 | wangzhh | hi all | |
| 03:06:58 | Li_Liu | Hi wangzhh | |
| 03:07:07 | wangzhh | Sorry for late. | |
| 03:08:26 | Coco_gao | I will add my UTs. | |
| 03:08:30 | Sundar | #info Sundar | |
| 03:08:38 | Li_Liu | Hi Sundar | |
| 03:08:43 | Sundar | Sorry for the delay | |
| 03:08:47 | Sundar | Hi Li_Liu | |
| 03:08:48 | Coco_gao | Hi Sundar | |
| 03:08:58 | Sundar | Hi Coco_gao and all | |
| 03:09:44 | Li_Liu | I think are in a good shape so far | |
| 03:10:30 | zhipeng | Any luck to have xilinx driver lol ? | |
| 03:10:40 | Li_Liu | no updates tho | |
| 03:11:10 | Li_Liu | I can follow up with Chuck later | |
| 03:11:42 | Li_Liu | but prob not gonna make to the deadline | |
| 03:12:43 | Li_Liu | zhipeng, we can still refine our docs after the deadline right? | |
| 03:13:23 | zhipeng | Need to do it before the RC | |
| 03:14:16 | Sundar | What is needed for docs? | |
| 03:14:38 | Li_Liu | RC1 is Mar 18 - Mar 22 | |
| 03:15:54 | Li_Liu | https://docs.openstack.org/cyborg/latest/#developer-documentation | |
| 03:16:14 | Li_Liu | yumeng already added quite some stuff there | |
| 03:16:25 | Sundar | Li_Liu: We have feedback that we should improve our API docs. I can document the current v1 API, if nobody else volunteers. | |
| 03:16:31 | Li_Liu | we need to keep improving it | |
| 03:16:41 | Li_Liu | Sundar, sure thanks a lot | |
| 03:17:20 | Li_Liu | I will take some time to work on the python-clinet | |
| 03:17:41 | Li_Liu | as least make it align with our docs and APIs | |
| 03:18:30 | Coco_gao | Hi Sundar, still one thing about driver ovo. Is deployable name unique? why is that? | |
| 03:18:35 | Coco_gao | Thanks a lot. | |
| 03:19:08 | Sundar | Coco_gao: I think so, because it will be used as resource provider name in Placement, and that must be unique AFAIK | |
| 03:19:43 | Li_Liu | How are we going to guarantee deployable's name's uniqueness | |
| 03:20:05 | Li_Liu | are we doing the check when the resource is reported? | |
| 03:20:25 | Coco_gao | we can't if we set the name field in the drivers. | |
| 03:20:33 | Sundar | Coco_gao: I don't see explicit documentation that it must be unique. I will check and get back. | |
| 03:21:31 | Sundar | Coco_gao and all: why can't Cyborg agent construct the name from other fields like vendor, type, etc., and add a unique id? | |
| 03:21:55 | Sundar | E.g. 'INTEL_FPGA_PAC_CARD_ID1' | |
| 03:22:08 | Li_Liu | is this ID1 a uuid? | |
| 03:22:26 | Sundar | Li_Liu: I was thinking a simple integer | |
| 03:22:38 | Sundar | Oh, wait | |
| 03:22:50 | Sundar | There is a convention for naming nested RPs | |
| 03:22:59 | Sundar | It is based on compute node name | |
| 03:23:07 | Sundar | I will check and send email. | |
| 03:23:22 | xinranwang | now the deployable name is the filename in /sys/class/fpga, it's unique | |
| 03:24:01 | Sundar | xinranwang: It is unique within a compute node | |
| 03:24:10 | Sundar | The same name can repeat across nodes | |
| 03:24:16 | Coco_gao | Sundar, I agree we'd better do that in agent. | |
| 03:25:01 | Sundar | We are not reporting anything ti Placement yet, right? | |
| 03:25:04 | Coco_gao | xinranwang, that's the problem when across nodes, name maybe same right? | |
| 03:25:07 | Li_Liu | how about when we report the deployable to placement API, we concate name+uuid | |
| 03:25:53 | Sundar | Li_Liu: good idea. I'll get back with the name convention for nested RPs | |
| 03:26:16 | wangzhh | xinranwang, what if different node has same device? Is it unique? | |
| 03:26:33 | xinranwang | if we support NRP, we can identify which host the deployable locate, should it be ok to have same deployable name in different compute node ? | |
| 03:27:13 | Coco_gao | xinranwang, that will be ok, i think. | |
| 03:27:33 | shaohe_feng_ | the fpga devices name is generated by the kernel. | |
| 03:27:37 | wangzhh | xinranwang, Not really, Now it is global unique. | |
| 03:27:43 | shaohe_feng_ | the name is unique | |
| 03:28:33 | shaohe_feng_ | it does not mater if different node has same device | |
| 03:28:40 | Coco_gao | the reason why we need to keep unique from the aspect of driver ovo is that we need to identify the deployable. But driver ovo is compared in the same node, so, the name need only to be unique in one host. | |
| 03:29:06 | shaohe_feng_ | Coco_gao: yes. | |
| 03:29:33 | wangzhh | Coco, so we should change db, it is global unique now. | |
| 03:29:33 | shaohe_feng_ | for device@host is unique | |
| 03:29:39 | xinranwang | so i think it's ok to have same deployable name in different compute node, in placement side. But name should be unique on same compute node. | |
| 03:30:17 | shaohe_feng_ | the name is not used to identify a device | |
| 03:30:26 | Coco_gao | wangzhh, Sundar and all, maybe we need to change the db constrains on the deployable table, name field. | |
| 03:30:46 | Coco_gao | do you argree if I modify that? | |
| 03:31:03 | Li_Liu | what constrain? | |
| 03:31:07 | shaohe_feng_ | just a Prompt for human | |
| 03:31:21 | Coco_gao | the name field is unique in deployable table. | |
| 03:31:33 | Li_Liu | ah, ok | |
| 03:31:42 | Li_Liu | go ahead | |
| 03:31:50 | Li_Liu | no problem on my side | |
| 03:31:55 | shaohe_feng_ | I agree | |
| 03:31:58 | Coco_gao | OK, thank you are for the advice. | |
| 03:32:05 | Coco_gao | all | |
| 03:32:07 | wangzhh | Of course. But how to handle device like gpu, <device_name>_<address>? | |
| 03:32:24 | Sundar | Coco_gao: I think it is ok to make it unique because: there is some proposed convention to name nested RPs like '<hostname>_<numaNode>_<x>' and x must be unique within a node anyway for us. | |
| 03:32:25 | shaohe_feng_ | just keep id/uuid unique. it it machine readable. | |