| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-03-27 | |||
| 14:25:47 | efried | jaypipes: Anyway, it sounds like a lovely idea you had :) | |
| 14:26:06 | jaypipes | efried, bauzas: I'm the person that would shit a brick if you start adding dynamic inventory creation based on whatever a user requested. | |
| 14:26:34 | efried | Yes, but not the only person. | |
| 14:26:52 | bauzas | jaypipes: I'm entering the danger timezone of me needing to go get my children at school | |
| 14:27:15 | bauzas | jaypipes: tl;dr I just want the inventory for that specific physical GPU to be config-driven | |
| 14:27:31 | bauzas | jaypipes: if that sounds crazy, tell me more in 20 mins :) | |
| 14:27:35 | jaypipes | bauzas: yet another whitelist conf option, yes, I know. | |
| 14:28:15 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make get_allocation_candidates() honor aggregate restrictions https://review.openstack.org/547990 | |
| 14:28:16 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Add AggregateList.get_by_metadata() query method https://review.openstack.org/544728 | |
| 14:28:16 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Add an index on aggregate_metadata.value https://review.openstack.org/555851 | |
| 14:28:17 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Honor availability_zone hint via placement https://review.openstack.org/546282 | |
| 14:28:17 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Add require_tenant_aggregate request filter https://review.openstack.org/545002 | |
| 14:29:12 | sahid | jaypipes: if you can enqueue this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511188/ :) | |
| 14:29:44 | mriedem | efried: can we abandon https://review.openstack.org/#/c/497978/ or do you plan on updating it? | |
| 14:30:17 | efried | mriedem: Eventually. But I can abandon for now and resurrect at that time. | |
| 14:30:35 | mriedem | ok. i'm just starting backward for specs, oldest to newest and cleaning out the cruft. | |
| 14:30:56 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Network bandwidth resource provider https://review.openstack.org/502306 | |
| 14:31:29 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: should we abandon https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438134/ for service-protected-servers? does that align with anything keystone is working on with RBAC? | |
| 14:31:32 | mriedem | edmondsw: ^ | |
| 14:32:35 | edmondsw | in a mtg, will look in a few | |
| 14:32:44 | mriedem | dansmith: this was the thing that prompted my ML thread about volume type proxy https://review.openstack.org/#/c/466595/ | |
| 14:32:53 | mriedem | i think... | |
| 14:33:22 | dansmith | ack | |
| 14:35:47 | mriedem | bauzas: i'm going to start an ops list thread about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/446446/ since if it's just a bug fix for broken behavior, we don't need a spec or a microversion | |
| 14:37:29 | bhagyashris | Disallow rotation parameter 0 for 'createBackup' API) Request you to review the same. | |
| 14:37:29 | bhagyashris | mriedem, alex_xu_: Hi, I have proposed revised (as per the discussion in Dublin PTG) spec: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511825/2 ( | |
| 14:37:54 | mriedem | bhagyashris: cool i'll review today | |
| 14:38:25 | alex_xu_ | kashyap: strange...I didn't see there is extra_flags in LibvirtConfigGuestCPU obj | |
| 14:38:39 | alex_xu_ | bhagyashris: cool, will try to reach that | |
| 14:38:45 | kashyap | alex_xu_: But, thanks to your comment, I could actually remove another line in the test | |
| 14:39:01 | alex_xu_ | kashyap: np | |
| 14:39:14 | kashyap | alex_xu_: I'll upload a new version once I re-run my local tests. | |
| 14:39:21 | kashyap | alex_xu_: As I caught another bug from a functional test. | |
| 14:39:48 | kashyap | The casing of the config options was lost, after I moved to Oslo StrOpt(). Glad I tested locally w/ both casings | |
| 14:39:54 | kashyap | (Now fixed it) | |
| 14:41:14 | jaypipes | the port binding information in Neutron for that. I still don't see why those should be traits. | |
| 14:41:14 | jaypipes | gibi: "The backend information is needed for the NeutronBackendWeigher that tries to simulate the Neutron backend selection mechanism by implementing a preference order between backends." <-- this is what concerns me about the introduction of those NET_BACKEND_XXX traits. I don't see those traits as being germane to scheduling. Rather, I just see them as being a part of the port configuration information that we send down to os-vif. And we have | |
| 14:42:40 | alex_xu_ | kashyap: actually I mean I didn't find a extra_flags field for the LibvirtConfigGuestCPU even for now... | |
| 14:42:55 | gibi | jaypipes: the backend traits are not needed for the placement query or for the scheduler filters | |
| 14:43:04 | efried | jaypipes: Do you have a spec queued up for NRP-in-a_c yet? | |
| 14:43:31 | gibi | jaypipes: but as the filter scheduler makes the allocation, it implicitly decides about the backend as well | |
| 14:43:49 | gibi | jaypipes: and before the bandwidth feature this decision was made by neutron | |
| 14:44:07 | gibi | jaypipes: but after it, the decision is made by the filter scheduler | |
| 14:44:11 | bhagyashris | mriedem, alex_xu_: thank you :) | |
| 14:44:23 | gibi | jaypipes: so we want to save some of the freedom of neutron here | |
| 14:44:25 | kashyap | alex_xu_: It's not in that class. But take a look at LibvirtConfigCPUFeature() | |
| 14:44:38 | gibi | jaypipes: by adding a weigher that can express backend preference order | |
| 14:45:28 | kashyap | alex_xu_: Typo, actually this one: LibvirtConfigGuestCPUFeature() | |
| 14:45:39 | jaypipes | efried: crap. haven't finished it. | |
| 14:45:44 | jaypipes | efried: I can push what I have. | |
| 14:46:08 | efried | jaypipes: as you see fit. Just thought I'd ask, it being spec review day and all. | |
| 14:47:06 | openstackgerrit | Matthew Booth proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add serial numbers for local disks https://review.openstack.org/556565 | |
| 14:47:10 | jaypipes | efried: ack, thx for the reminder. | |
| 14:49:01 | sean-k-mooney[m] | stephenfin: hi sorry was in a meeting you wanted me to comment on some ovs-dpdk stuff | |
| 14:49:27 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Amend the member_of spec for multiple query sets https://review.openstack.org/555413 | |
| 14:49:58 | efried | dansmith: remove -2 from ^ ? | |
| 14:50:11 | dansmith | efried: yep, I just need to fix a pep8 thing I just noticed | |
| 14:50:16 | efried | o | |
| 14:50:27 | efried | dansmith: Two spots | |
| 14:51:10 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney[m]: Indeed. sahid was suggesting we could simply rely on NUMA affinity of a vhost-user interface's PMD queues to determine where to place a host | |
| 14:51:12 | bauzas | mriedem: ack, thanks | |
| 14:51:23 | bauzas | mriedem: honestly, I wasn't knowing what to do with this | |
| 14:51:32 | efried | dansmith: While you're at it, "in in" | |
| 14:52:46 | dansmith | efried: ah yeah saw that before and had forgottten it | |
| 14:52:48 | dansmith | tttt | |
| 14:53:03 | efried | dansmith: Please clarify whether the multiple-member_of thing will also be implemented in GET /resource_providers | |
| 14:53:36 | dansmith | efried: ah, I was going to ask if we should do that too, but I expected it would be outside this spec, no? | |
| 14:54:32 | efried | dansmith: Whether it is or not, that should be stated. I could go either way. But slight preference for including it. For a couple of reasons... | |
| 14:54:39 | dansmith | ack | |
| 14:55:23 | efried | dansmith: First, a single microversion introducing multiple-member_of syntax. I like that better than one microversion introducing it for one URI, another for introducing what's effectively the same feature to another URI. | |
| 14:55:26 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Amend the member_of spec for multiple query sets https://review.openstack.org/555413 | |
| 14:55:54 | efried | dansmith: Second, it's actually going to make the code easier to write. Because we currently do the processing of member_of in common code for both; so we can continue to do that. | |
| 14:56:00 | dansmith | efried: sure | |
| 14:56:45 | sean-k-mooney[m] | stephenfin: that wont work als ovs has no idea if there is enough memory on the numa node for the vm also the memory is not allocated until the vhost-user frontend in qemu connects to the vhost-user backend in ovs | |
| 14:56:54 | efried | dansmith: Technically, the Work Items section should be updated... | |
| 14:57:15 | dansmith | efried: for /rps? | |
| 14:57:31 | efried | dansmith: On rereading, it's sufficiently vague to be acceptable as is. | |
| 14:57:36 | dansmith | yeah, I was going to say.. | |
| 14:57:45 | efried | dansmith: Which is fine by me; I've always thought that section was pretty much redundant anyway. | |
| 14:58:20 | efried | dansmith: +1. One spec down! | |
| 14:58:29 | sean-k-mooney[m] | stephenfin: the other thing is that when the vhost-user frontend connects to the vhost-user backend in ovs it tries to allocate memory and pmd for the vhost-user interface from on of the numa nodes of the guest automatically | |
| 14:58:43 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Handle nested providers for allocation candidates https://review.openstack.org/556873 | |
| 14:59:50 | jaypipes | efried: ^ | |
| 14:59:58 | efried | jaypipes: ack | |
| 15:00:53 | mriedem | bhagyashris: comments inline https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511825/ | |
| 15:04:00 | jaypipes | gibi: maybe I'm just being thick... I still don't get it. You will have multiple backends on the same compute host supporting the same physical networks that support the same vNIC types and you want to be able to choose which backend to allocate a piece of bandwidth from? | |
| 15:04:12 | bauzas | jaypipes: I'm not sure we need a spec for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/556873/1/specs/rocky/approved/nested-resource-providers-allocation-candidates.rst | |
| 15:04:24 | bauzas | jaypipes: it's just fixes we need to merge IMHO | |
| 15:05:01 | mriedem | bauzas: it's an api change and microversion right? | |
| 15:05:03 | mriedem | so spec is required yeah | |
| 15:05:05 | mriedem | ? | |
| 15:05:17 | gibi | jaypipes: exactly. Neutron today does it in the following way: | |
| 15:05:28 | gibi | jaypipes: Neutron has a mechnism driver config | |
| 15:05:32 | bauzas | mriedem: from the spec itself, looks like it's not changing the API | |
| 15:05:37 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney[m]: Potentially dumb question, but in what way would lack of guest memory be related? | |
| 15:05:47 | gibi | jaypipes: Neutron iterates throught that list and try binding the port with the given driver | |
| 15:05:48 | jaypipes | mriedem: no API change, no. | |
| 15:06:05 | stephenfin | I figured if you could do 'ovs-appctl dpif-netdev/pmd-rxq-show' to show the affinity for a given interface and just return that | |
| 15:06:12 | gibi | jaypipes: the first driver that returns a positive result from that bind call will be the one Neutron use | |
| 15:06:30 | gibi | jaypipes: so that config option defines a preference order between backends supporting the same physnet | |