| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-04-24 | |||
| 12:08:40 | jaypipes | alex_xu: will respond on the ML thread, ok? | |
| 12:12:05 | kashyap | Goddamnit | |
| 12:12:09 | kashyap | The Gerrit UI | |
| 12:12:33 | kashyap | It _keeps_ jumping around. | |
| 12:13:37 | kashyap | No wonder I still like the blazing fast e-mail workflow. /me whips up the 'ncurses'-based 'Gertty' tool to see if it has gotten a bit less crashy | |
| 12:13:41 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: matt found a workaround for that. in your preferences set render mode to slow | |
| 12:13:57 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Oh really? /me goes to look | |
| 12:13:59 | jaypipes | kashyap: I know. It's infuriating. | |
| 12:14:11 | kashyap | This just makes the throw the laptop out the fucking window | |
| 12:14:19 | jaypipes | sean-k-mooney: I have that set in my prefs and still happens occasionally. | |
| 12:14:28 | cdent | sean-k-mooney, kashyap the slow render mode helps some, but not all of it | |
| 12:14:32 | cdent | jinx | |
| 12:14:47 | sean-k-mooney | jaypipes: ya it seams to depend on gerrit version | |
| 12:15:19 | sean-k-mooney | there is a new gerrit ui based on javascitp on the latest realease called polygerrit | |
| 12:15:24 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Okay, so in Diff Preferences --> Render --> "Slow", yes? | |
| 12:15:31 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: yes | |
| 12:16:07 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Any other preferences that you "can't live without"? | |
| 12:16:19 | kashyap | Maybe I'm "missing out" something | |
| 12:16:25 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: not that come to mind | |
| 12:16:25 | kashyap | cdent: Noted | |
| 12:16:31 | kashyap | Cool; thanks | |
| 12:18:13 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: if we ever update the openstack gerrit to support polygerrit ui then that should solve this permently but im sure that has its own bugs | |
| 12:18:18 | jaypipes | kashyap: oh, I'm pretty sure you're missing out on lots of things :P | |
| 12:18:50 | kashyap | jaypipes: I just maintain my sanity (from Gerrit) by spending a portion of time on mailing list based projects :P | |
| 12:18:56 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: What does "polygerrit" do? | |
| 12:19:42 | jaypipes | kashyap: it's gerrit that simply repeats stuff back to you. | |
| 12:19:51 | jaypipes | kashyap: oh wait, no, that's PollyGerrit. | |
| 12:20:20 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: its a complete reimplementaiton of the entire gerrit ui in plomer.js and html5 so no more java/gwt | |
| 12:20:35 | kashyap | Unrelated "taste" question -- is it bad taste to write a small clarifying comment in a unit test? | |
| 12:20:38 | kashyap | E.g.: | |
| 12:20:40 | kashyap | + # For 'host-model', it is now valid to use 'extra_flags'; | |
| 12:20:43 | kashyap | + # so warning should not be thrown | |
| 12:20:45 | kashyap | + self.assertFalse(mock_warn.called) | |
| 12:20:54 | jaypipes | kashyap: that is good taste, IMHO. | |
| 12:20:55 | kashyap | There are multiple unit tests, but the "asserts" won't speak for themselves, if you're not reading code carefully around | |
| 12:21:19 | kashyap | jaypipes: Thanks. It is subtle, and this helps. So I'll add it in | |
| 12:21:42 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: My single biggest feature request is: if I can reply from Gerrit mail, that'll solve "everything" for me with Gerrit | |
| 12:21:46 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: the only time i would consider that bad taste is if it is done instead of splitting a test that is too complex. adding comments to explain clearly what your testing is good | |
| 12:21:58 | kashyap | As long as I don't have to deal with the clickety-clicky, RSI-inducing GUI | |
| 12:22:33 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1766208 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Lift the restriction on choices for `cpu_model_extra_flags` config attribute" [Undecided,New] - Assigned to Kashyap Chamarthy (kashyapc) | |
| 12:22:33 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Good point; I did split the test. I'm lifting the restriction we added here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1766208 | |
| 12:22:42 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: if openstack had an email only interface it would never work on it again. but if email via gerrit work then that would be cool | |
| 12:23:02 | kashyap | In the earlier patch, for 'host-model' it was invalid to specify 'extra_flags'. But now we allow it (as it is valid libvirt form) | |
| 12:23:23 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: s/"it would"/I would/ ? | |
| 12:23:37 | sean-k-mooney | ah the restiction we added for backporting | |
| 12:24:54 | sean-k-mooney | ya i think being able to extend host-model makes sense. it was just one extra vairible that we did not want to backport originally so i dont think that bug is controverial | |
| 12:25:46 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Yeah, now I'm lifting that | |
| 12:26:18 | kashyap | git diff --cached | |
| 12:26:18 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: it is technically a feature not a bug but even a specless blueprint seams to heavy for that so bug makes sense | |
| 12:26:22 | kashyap | Wrong window | |
| 12:26:30 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Yep | |
| 12:26:40 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: password: :) | |
| 12:26:48 | kashyap | Heh | |
| 12:30:49 | openstackgerrit | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Lift the restriction of choices for `cpu_model_extra_flags` https://review.openstack.org/563926 | |
| 12:31:09 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: ^ When you can, mind having a gander? | |
| 12:31:40 | kashyap | (Pinged you explicitly as you have context from the prior patch.) | |
| 12:31:57 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: ill be away for like 20 mins or so but i have it open in a tab for when i get back | |
| 12:32:11 | kashyap | Thanks! | |
| 12:35:50 | bhagyashris | efried; Hi, I just want to discuss regarding the zuul failure on patches https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560444/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560459/ . I have some observations; 1. Yesterday I had list down the test which are failing on both the patches [1][2] and then put the recheck in morning and checked wheather the same test are failing or not but I saw that the different tests are failing | |
| 12:36:12 | efried | bhagyashris: Unit or functional? | |
| 12:36:17 | bhagyashris | efried: Most of the test are failing with the error like (No valid host is found and Server <id> failed to build and is in ERROR status) so it seems that the host is not return properly from scheduler side. | |
| 12:36:36 | efried | oh, tempest | |
| 12:36:39 | bhagyashris | efried: tempest-full, tempest-full-py3 etc | |
| 12:36:48 | efried | Have you looked into the compute logs? | |
| 12:37:21 | bhagyashris | efried: I have checked the n-sch logs #link: http://logs.openstack.org/59/560459/3/check/tempest-full/b9c97a9/controller/logs/screen-n-sch.txt.gz#_Apr_24_06_52_41_192819 | |
| 12:38:31 | bhagyashris | efried: and it shows that the get_alocation_candidates() at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L148 is returning the empty list | |
| 12:41:14 | bhagyashris | efried: As n-sch is not returning the host and our patch has changes at n-cpu side so I am not getting where exactly it's failing? | |
| 12:44:03 | efried | bhagyashris: http://logs.openstack.org/59/560459/3/check/tempest-full/b9c97a9/controller/logs/screen-placement-api.txt.gz#_Apr_24_06_52_41_190125 | |
| 12:44:31 | efried | bhagyashris: But requests before that are succeeding. It's like the host is running out of resources. This could be an allocation ratio thing. | |
| 12:44:41 | bhagyashris | efried: I have debug the tempest test tempest.api.compute.servers.test_multiple_create.MultipleCreateTestJSON.test_multiple_create on patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560459/ and observed that the allocation_candidates() return at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L148 is empty list and same test i have ran on master there the allocation_candidates() return is successfully | |
| 12:47:02 | bhagyashris | efried: sorry i am getting fully . Means we will need some changes at placement side to fix the failing tests on zuul | |
| 12:48:40 | efried | bhagyashris: We definitely shouldn't need placement changes, no. | |
| 12:49:16 | efried | bhagyashris: You say you have a way to step through the tempest test and reproduce the failure? | |
| 12:49:47 | efried | bhagyashris: And presumably you would be able to step through that same test in an environment that did *not* include the patches in question (i.e. from the tip of the master branch)? | |
| 12:50:32 | efried | bhagyashris: So what we should do is query placement for the inventory records right before the meat of the test is run. | |
| 12:50:44 | efried | bhagyashris: They should be the *same* with or without our patch. | |
| 12:54:28 | bhagyashris | efried: I am not clear what will need to fix this | |
| 12:55:28 | bhagyashris | efried: As the same test are passing on master and our patches are not making any change at placement or n-sch side | |
| 12:56:40 | efried | bhagyashris: I am also not clear what is needed to fix this, which is why I suggested the above to debug. If we can demonstrate that the inventories in placement are different between master and our patch, then we've done something wrong with the transition from get_inventory to update_provider_tree. | |
| 12:56:59 | efried | bhagyashris: But if they're the same... then we need to look somewhere else (not sure where). | |
| 12:57:37 | bhagyashris | efried: ohh ok | |
| 12:58:02 | efried | bhagyashris: The tests fail the same way with the bottom patch as with the top, right? | |
| 12:58:10 | efried | So the problem isn't with our conditional DISK_GB thing. | |
| 12:58:21 | efried | It's with the translation from get_inventory to update_provider_tree. | |
| 12:58:34 | efried | Could be in the resource tracker. | |
| 12:58:39 | efried | or in the report client. | |
| 13:00:15 | bhagyashris | efried: just checked on both the patches different test are failing | |
| 13:01:40 | efried | bhagyashris: If we're reporting the inventory wrong, it could mean that we're running out of capacity sooner than we used to. But the tempest tests run in parallel in zuul. So which test runs out of capacity first could vary from one run to another. | |
| 13:01:56 | bhagyashris | on parent patch the tempest-full 2 test are failing and on child patch tempest-full 7 tests are failing | |
| 13:02:22 | efried | Let's just focus on the first patch compared to master. | |
| 13:03:15 | efried | bhagyashris: You said you were able to reproduce the failure manually? | |
| 13:03:34 | bhagyashris | efried: no | |
| 13:04:37 | bhagyashris | efried: I have debugged tempest test tempest.api.compute.servers.test_multiple_create.MultipleCreateTestJSON.test_multiple_create on patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560459/ and observed that the allocation_candidates() return at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L148 is empty list and same test i have ran on master there the allocation_candidates() return is successfully | |
| 13:06:10 | efried | bhagyashris: What do you mean by "debugged" then - you mean just looking at logs? | |
| 13:07:53 | bhagyashris | efried: I mean I have put pdb at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L121 and ran the tempest test using the tox -e py27 tempest test tempest.api.compute.servers.test_multiple_create.MultipleCreateTestJSON.test_multiple_create | |
| 13:08:20 | efried | bhagyashris: And you were able to reproduce the fact that GET /allocation_candidates returns no results? | |
| 13:08:25 | efried | ...with our patch | |
| 13:08:32 | efried | ...but on master it returns good results? | |
| 13:08:50 | bhagyashris | efried: yes | |
| 13:09:24 | efried | bhagyashris: Okay, so what I'm asking is for you to do the exact same thing, but when you hit your breakpoint, manually query the placement API and pull back the inventories and allocations for the compute host. | |