Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-01-05
16:20:41 mriedem Roamer`: but the ducks need to be in a row first
16:20:54 Roamer` mriedem, okay, thanks a lot! I'll be on my way to bother others now
16:21:37 Roamer` hmm, does this mean that, at least for the next couple of days, it might be a good idea for johnthetubaguy to remove his procedural -2, or shall we think about that only if we do get our ducks in a row first?
16:23:29 leakypipes cdent: answered :)
16:23:40 cdent thanks
16:24:11 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove the deprecated scheduler_driver_task_period option https://review.openstack.org/531413
16:24:12 mriedem johnthetubaguy: see how that wording sounds ^
16:24:18 mriedem Roamer`: it's fine for johnthetubaguy to remove his -2
16:24:25 mriedem we can replace it with mine :)
16:24:55 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Remove a duplicate line in a unit test https://review.openstack.org/531317
16:24:57 Roamer` :)
16:25:26 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: yeah. go into your profile -> settings -> diff preferences and set Render to "Slow"
16:25:45 leakypipes mriedem: is that right? ^
16:26:03 mriedem yup
16:28:12 leakypipes cdent: great questions, btw
16:28:48 cdent thanks, I'll try to make some more, by monday's meeting we can have a grand chat
16:29:26 sean-k-mooney leakypipes: mriedem awsome that bug was painful.
16:29:37 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: yeah, it sucks.
16:30:16 leakypipes it's kinda funny. the Gerrit UI seems to deliberately try and emulate late 1990s style.
16:30:53 mriedem what is 2018 style? animal avitars like the iphone x?
16:31:00 leakypipes mriedem: you know it.
16:31:05 mriedem i'll gladly fork out $1000 for that piece of shit
16:31:09 leakypipes not.
16:35:59 openstackgerrit melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: libvirt: Re-initialise volumes, encryptors, and vifs on hard reboot https://review.openstack.org/531422
16:41:04 cdent leakypipes: made a response, in which besides opening up some more worm cans, I note that the good questions still stand
16:45:08 mriedem melwitt: i think we should split the index add out of this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/334614/ and do that in a separate change
16:45:31 melwitt rats. okay
16:47:26 sean-k-mooney leakypipes: well gerrit is written in java useing gwt so its not exactly html5 native. its better then github pull requests though for code review so im not complaining
16:47:27 leakypipes cdent: re: allocations for vCenter-owned (not OpenStack-owned) resources... the allocation records in placement don't care who creates them, of course. so yes, if there were some external agent that claimed resources for some non-OpenStack consumers, that would be fine I suppose. As long as that agent uses the POST /allocations interface to ensure read and write consistency, that doesn't bother me at all.
16:47:59 leakypipes cdent: I just want to make sure that for *OpenStack consumers*, it's the scheduler (or conductor for move operations) that is the thing that claims resources for the system.
16:48:34 leakypipes cdent: for all the reasons that we moved to scheduler doing claims in Pike...
16:49:14 sean-k-mooney leakypipes: speaking of code review. regarding your nrp api patch that merged in early december, is the best way to play around with that just use curl/postman and do it manually or have there been any osc patches created?
16:49:56 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: :) that's actually the patch series we're currently discussing :)
16:50:03 melwitt mriedem: I changed the name of the ConsoleConnection object too. let me know if that wasn't a good idea
16:50:21 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/nested-resource-providers+(status:open)
16:50:28 mriedem melwitt: i like it, going through that diff now
16:50:43 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: I'm currently working on integrating n-r-p with the allocation candidates stuff. fried_rice is focusing on the integration with the virt driver piece.
16:51:04 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: so besides playing around with the hierarchy stuff in providers, there's not much you can yet do.
16:52:37 sean-k-mooney leakypipes: yep i was brefily talking to fried_rice about a poc im hoping to do in the next 6-8 to use it to support vhost-vfio interfaces.
16:53:01 leakypipes ++
16:54:06 sean-k-mooney *6-8 weeks... units are important
16:54:45 mriedem melwitt: which service should i see these log statements? cauth? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/320063/25/nova/objects/console_auth_token.py@116
16:54:56 mriedem or will this not actually run yet in ci in this change?
16:56:27 melwitt mriedem: yeah I think you won't see it until the last change in the series, in the novnc service log
16:57:07 mriedem ah yes
16:57:08 mriedem http://logs.openstack.org/12/527812/1/check/tempest-full/26f5e5f/controller/logs/screen-n-novnc-cell1.txt
16:57:15 mriedem ess_path=None,port=5900,token='***',updated_at=None) {{(pid=6917) validate /opt/stack/nova/nova/objects/console_auth_token.py:159}}
16:57:15 mriedem Jan 05 01:44:25.338490 ubuntu-xenial-citycloud-sto2-0001695415 nova-novncproxy[10280]: DEBUG nova.objects.console_auth_token [None req-166854c4-3f01-4db1-890b-212b7ba78e95 None None] Validated token - console connection is ConsoleAuthToken(access_url_base='http://10.0.1.151:6080/vnc_auto.html',console_type='novnc',created_at=2018-01-05T01:44:25Z,host='127.0.0.1',id=1,instance_uuid=4453afe4-e6eb-4479-a073-0f99a76c71f1,internal
16:57:26 mriedem NOICE
16:57:33 melwitt :D
16:58:14 mriedem finucannot: you were +2 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/320063/ before a rebase and some changes
16:58:22 leakypipes fried_rice: question...
16:58:30 melwitt I did a bunch of token masking for the logs and then realized the websocketproxy logs the whole thing on its own, not our code
16:59:25 leakypipes fried_rice: did we say that for allocation candidates responses, we would include "intermediary nodes" in the provider_summaries section even if those nodes weren't involved in any of the allocation_requests?
16:59:51 melwitt but it's at level INFO so if someone cares they can turn the level up
17:00:31 leakypipes fried_rice: for example, say we have a compute node provider, two numa cell providers and two pfs that are children, one of each numa cell. and the allocation_requests contains the compute node (for VCPU and MEMORY_MB) and both PFs (for SRIOV_NET_VF resources), should the provider_summaries include the numa cell providers as well even though no resources are directly consumed from them?
17:01:27 cdent bbs
17:02:12 mriedem melwitt: on that index, i'd be fine with it in the same change as long as you call it out in the commit message and check the columns instead of the index name - i doubt anyone would want/need to backport that index add
17:02:18 mriedem if that makes life easier
17:03:25 figleaf leakypipes: it would make sense to include the whole "tree" of RPs, so that filters etc. could operate on that info
17:04:34 leakypipes figleaf: ack, that's what I thought I remembered. thanks for reminding me. :)
17:04:43 sean-k-mooney leakypipes: that is assuimg the resouce provider tree has 3 branches basically host->numa_node->pf, host->vcpu, host->memory_mb and vcpu and memory are not inventories of the numa nodes correct
17:04:58 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: right.
17:04:58 melwitt mriedem: okay. it probably makes more sense to be separate since the query isn't till a later change anyway. but curious, how could it end up part of a backport?
17:05:52 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: plus, keep in mind the allocation_requests and the provider_summaries sections of GET /allocation_candidates response are different things... the former section is the providers that would be actually allocated against. the latter section is just informational.
17:06:24 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Use UEFI as the default boot for AArch64 https://review.openstack.org/489951
17:09:22 sean-k-mooney leakypipes: if the summery is just informational and wont be just to make desision then i dont see any harm in simplfying the representation and just weak referncing the numa afinity of the resouces.
17:09:53 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: could you elaborate on what you mean by that?
17:10:11 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: the numa affinity of the PFs is not a tag/trait. rather, it's the structure of the tree itself.
17:12:21 sean-k-mooney leakypipes: if the provider_summaries was used by a weigher for example then it would be good to keep the numa afinity info in the summary however if the chose beteewn which allocation candiate is made based on the tree structure then the summary could be less detailed
17:12:35 melwitt mriedem_luncharo: nevermind, my question is answered in your review comment
17:14:01 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: understood.
17:14:03 leakypipes thx
17:23:55 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova stable/pike: Use instance.project_id when creating request specs for old instances https://review.openstack.org/529384
17:24:00 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova stable/pike: Workaround missing RequestSpec.project_id when moving an instance https://review.openstack.org/529385
17:25:03 fried_rice leakypipes Sorry, was otp. My understanding was that we did intend to include resource *classes* that weren't part of the request. I don't know if we talked about including other unused providers in the same tree. I don't see the harm in doing it, and rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. But no strong feelings either way.
17:25:49 fried_rice And to be clear, that's in the provider summaries, *not* in the allocations portion.
17:30:07 leakypipes fried_rice: ack
17:30:26 openstackgerrit Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova master: Fix race condition in retrying migrations https://review.openstack.org/531022
17:30:27 openstackgerrit Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova master: Change compute RPC to use alternates for resize https://review.openstack.org/526436
17:33:40 sean-k-mooney fried_rice: leakypipes haveing the extra info in the summery could help debuging i guess but do ye enviosion end users reading them directly? e.g. would it be stored in the instance info when you do an openstack server show like the cached flavor or something similar?
17:34:44 sean-k-mooney leakypipes: fried_rice basically is the summary for people or python?
17:35:18 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: no, this is an admin-only API endpoint that is only for the scheduler to make better decisions. none of this information is available to end users.
17:35:35 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: func tests for nested providers in alloc candidate https://review.openstack.org/531443
17:35:55 leakypipes fried_rice, figleaf, sean-k-mooney: thou comments welcome... ^^
17:36:53 sean-k-mooney leakypipes: i like that the fist think i see is an ascii diagram of what is about to be tested :)
17:37:09 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: you can thank gibi_away for that practice :)
17:41:31 sean-k-mooney leakypipes: out of scope of queens but rocky+ could the VCPU and memory_mb(or perhaps just hugepages) inventories be moved to the numa node resouce providers?
17:42:22 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: possible. definitely something we need to be (very carefully) handle and discuss in Dublion.
17:42:25 leakypipes or even Dublin
17:44:45 sean-k-mooney memory_mb is basically the non hugepage memory(e.g. 4k pages) which is basically managed by the kernel auptomatically so may that shoudl stay at the compute node level but vcpus i think would be a gould fit for the numa resouce provider. im just not sure how straight forword it would be do do the db migration required.
17:45:53 leakypipes sean-k-mooney: right
17:46:15 cdent db migration? presumably the resource tracker would intead choose to change the inventory for its tree
17:46:40 cdent we _really_ need to not think of placement as authoritative on that stuff. reality should be.
17:46:54 cdent with placement second
17:47:08 cdent ideally reality should be able to recover all of placement
17:47:24 leakypipes fried_rice, figleaf: do you think it would be better to have an entirely different code path in the allocation candidates code when we notice that there are provider trees? you know how we currently have a fast-path for when there are no sharing providers? should we do the same kind of thing for provider trees?
17:47:51 leakypipes cdent: ^^
17:48:04 cdent my initial reaction is "yes"
17:48:13 leakypipes didn't know you were back from your walkabout... ;)

Earlier   Later