| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-10-27 | |||
| 15:37:03 | bauwser | mdbooth: if you need something to tag your volumes, it's cinder, not nova | |
| 15:37:06 | mdbooth | How's it a cinder thing? | |
| 15:37:23 | mdbooth | Nah, that's totally a Nova thing | |
| 15:37:52 | mdbooth | Cinder just gives us a repository of bits. It's entirely Nova's domain how that's presented to the guest. | |
| 15:38:37 | bauwser | mdbooth: what is the purpose of tagging that? | |
| 15:39:10 | bauwser | I'm surely not getting the full picture, but I don't get why I need to keep information on how my volume is presented to the guest | |
| 15:39:15 | mdbooth | Device tagging? It's so the guest OS can identify specific devices which were specified by the api. | |
| 15:39:39 | bauwser | mdbooth: oh, but that's a totally different problem | |
| 15:39:52 | bauwser | mdbooth: and surely device names don't solve it | |
| 15:40:15 | bauwser | mdbooth: if you need some device tagging like we did for NICs, I understand that's a nova problem | |
| 15:40:23 | mdbooth | Device tagging is a much, much better way to solve the same problem. | |
| 15:40:34 | bauwser | I just don't understand why it blocks us to get rid of device names | |
| 15:40:52 | bauwser | because device names wasn't helping to solve the problem you mention on the guest side | |
| 15:41:17 | bauwser | it's even worst : you think it will help | |
| 15:41:27 | bauwser | by 'you', I mean the application developer | |
| 15:41:41 | bauwser | so for example, I'm a user | |
| 15:42:01 | bauwser | I'm using device names because I think it will give me a way to know which device I'm getting on the guest side | |
| 15:42:07 | bauwser | guess what ? It doesn't work | |
| 15:42:37 | bauwser | like I said to you in our meeting, I played with it in Essex | |
| 15:42:41 | bauwser | and Folsom | |
| 15:42:45 | bauwser | totally a mess | |
| 15:43:00 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Update placement api-ref: allocations link in 1.11 https://review.openstack.org/515748 | |
| 15:43:01 | bauwser | I learned hard that device names weren't a firm contract | |
| 15:43:18 | fried_rice | mriedem leakypipes ^ I didn't bother to base it on the one in the gate; should I? | |
| 15:43:58 | leakypipes | fried_rice: I don't personally mind if mriedem is cool with that | |
| 15:45:29 | mriedem | add a depends-on at least | |
| 15:45:34 | leakypipes | fried_rice: +2 from me. | |
| 15:45:51 | leakypipes | fried_rice: good point from mriedem on the depends-on | |
| 15:47:21 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Update placement api-ref: allocations link in 1.11 https://review.openstack.org/515748 | |
| 15:47:28 | fried_rice | leakypipes mriedem depends-on ^ | |
| 15:47:45 | mdbooth | bauwser: Was just reading that review back. I've evicted that context from my mental cache ;) | |
| 15:48:18 | mdbooth | bauwser: Sounds like the issue was that there's an existing useful interaction with image-defined bdms | |
| 15:48:43 | mdbooth | Without more spelunking, though, I don't recall what that interaction is | |
| 15:49:42 | mdbooth | If that were the case, though, bdm uuids wouldn't be a replacement. | |
| 15:51:40 | mdbooth | ...but device tags could be | |
| 15:51:55 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Deduplicate instance.reboot notification samples https://review.openstack.org/515751 | |
| 15:55:04 | fried_rice | sdague FYI, I think there's still something wrong with that cinder patch. I should -W it. | |
| 15:59:34 | leakypipes | rabel: reviewed. | |
| 16:00:23 | rabel | leakypipes: thank you | |
| 16:09:55 | cdent | leakypipes: see my response on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/510626/ for why project_id and user_id was not added on /rp/u/allocations _now_ | |
| 16:19:53 | jianghuaw | leakypipes, bauwser: I have a question about vGPU's inventory update. it invoking get_inventory() when compute_node is changed: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/resource_tracker.py#L807 | |
| 16:20:42 | jianghuaw | But for vGPU, we only report it via inventory no new fields saved in obj of compute_node. | |
| 16:22:32 | jianghuaw | I see there is inventory caching in resource provider tree. and a new function update_inventory() is implemented. | |
| 16:22:53 | jianghuaw | But I assume that's only for nest-RP. right? | |
| 16:23:06 | openstackgerrit | David Rabel proposed openstack/nova master: VMware: add support for graceful shutdown of instances https://review.openstack.org/494169 | |
| 16:24:00 | jianghuaw | leakypipes, bauwser: I think our plan is to implement vGPU by associate the inventory on compute node as the first step. so not depending on the n-r-p. | |
| 16:25:21 | jianghuaw | then how to trigger the inventory update without resource provider tree? | |
| 16:27:35 | bauwser | jianghuaw: see my libvirt change | |
| 16:27:48 | bauwser | jianghuaw: I'm hoping to push a new revision by tonight | |
| 16:29:18 | jianghuaw | is this already included in the existing patch? bauwser | |
| 16:29:57 | jianghuaw | or will be in the new revision? | |
| 16:30:21 | rabel | leakypipes: is the new patchset ok? | |
| 16:30:25 | jianghuaw | bauwser, I didn't see that part in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/514763 | |
| 16:35:18 | jianghuaw | bauwser, I was thinking we should make it to invoke get_inventory regardless compute_node changed or not. caching inventory locally; and update inventory to placement if inventory changed. | |
| 16:36:49 | jianghuaw | bauwser, Good to know you've already considered it. | |
| 16:40:22 | jianghuaw | leakypipes, bauwser, superdan: it's appreciated if you can have a look at this patch for get_inventory in XenAPI: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/339204/ | |
| 16:40:43 | jianghuaw | hope it be an easy one:-) | |
| 16:40:47 | leakypipes | jianghuaw: will do shortly. on phone right now. | |
| 16:41:07 | jianghuaw | leakypipes, thanks:-) | |
| 16:45:31 | leakypipes | cdent: yes, that makes sense. | |
| 16:47:30 | bauwser | jianghuaw: sorry, I was super busy prepping the new rev | |
| 16:47:40 | bauwser | jianghuaw: so, basically, we have the same problem with libvirt | |
| 16:47:52 | bauwser | jianghuaw: for example, we have a list of supported types | |
| 16:48:04 | bauwser | jianghuaw: then, the operator selects a specific type | |
| 16:48:16 | bauwser | (if you see my change, we only support one) | |
| 16:48:33 | bauwser | jianghuaw: so, the inventory is saying N+M | |
| 16:48:50 | bauwser | where N is the allocatable mdevs, and M is the already allocated ones | |
| 16:49:38 | bauwser | if the operator modifies that, then it's creating a problem because when you create a mdev by a type, the other types for the same device are getting 0 allocable mdevs | |
| 16:51:13 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: libvirt: Provide VGPU inventory for a single GPU type https://review.openstack.org/514763 | |
| 16:51:23 | bauwser | jianghuaw: new revision ^ | |
| 16:51:38 | jianghuaw | yes. I see. It can't create mdev for the other types once created a specific type of mdev. | |
| 16:51:51 | jianghuaw | looking at it | |
| 16:53:18 | jianghuaw | bauwser, no. my problem is different: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/resource_tracker.py#L807 | |
| 16:53:38 | jianghuaw | it will return if the compute_node resource is not changed. | |
| 16:54:51 | jianghuaw | bauwser, at the moment it only compare some resource fields of compute-node's: e.g. vcpu, memory. | |
| 16:54:52 | bauwser | jianghuaw: so, what's your concern ? | |
| 16:55:44 | jianghuaw | the vGPU resource is not saved in compute-node. so my concern is the vGPU inventory may be not be updated if the other resource is not changed. | |
| 16:56:01 | bauwser | a-ja | |
| 16:56:47 | jianghuaw | bauwser, as vGPU is only reported by get_inventory() | |
| 16:57:19 | bauwser | jianghuaw: right, good point | |
| 16:57:39 | bauwser | jianghuaw: so we should somehow signal those the old way | |
| 16:58:11 | bauwser | not saying to add the VGPU resources in the Computenode object :) | |
| 16:58:29 | bauwser | just having a way to signal it thru update_available_resources | |
| 16:58:31 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Use ksa adapter for placement conf & requests https://review.openstack.org/492247 | |
| 16:58:43 | bauwser | or other way, I dunno | |
| 16:58:48 | bauwser | I need to think about it | |
| 16:59:17 | jianghuaw | I see. what I was thinking is to invoked always get_inventory(). | |
| 16:59:56 | jianghuaw | but I'm not sure if that's acceptable. | |
| 17:01:58 | jianghuaw | bauwser, here it defines update_inventory https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/provider_tree.py#L233 | |
| 17:02:18 | bauwser | jianghuaw: one way to see that is that we could call get_inventory() first, pass it to _resource_change, keep it in memory and compare it at the next _resource_change run | |
| 17:02:39 | jianghuaw | but it requires some way to determine how and when to get the new inventory. | |
| 17:02:47 | bauwser | because _resource_change is just for making sure we don't update the DB every 60 secs | |
| 17:03:24 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: rp: move RP._set_traits() to module scope https://review.openstack.org/509028 | |
| 17:03:30 | bauwser | jianghuaw: for Queens, I really would like my series to not be depending on n-r-p | |
| 17:04:40 | jianghuaw | bauwser, the n-r-p seems in good progress. isn't it? | |
| 17:04:57 | jianghuaw | maybe we can use n-r-p? | |
| 17:07:31 | jianghuaw | bauwser, anyway I also agree that passing it to _resource_change looks like a good solution. | |
| 17:07:59 | bauwser | jianghuaw: I can write that change | |
| 17:08:09 | jianghuaw | I'd like to see the viewpoint from leakypipes also. | |
| 17:08:30 | bauwser | I need to dinner, but I'd be around by the next 2 hours | |