| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-10-23 | |||
| 12:47:03 | aperevalov | moshele: does it use in gerrit integration tests by zuul? | |
| 12:48:32 | moshele | aperevalov: we run tempest scenarios and configure the tempest to use vnic_type=direct | |
| 12:49:35 | moshele | aperevalov: see https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/master/tempest/config.py#L628 | |
| 12:50:10 | sean-k-mooney | moshele: oh when was that option added? | |
| 12:50:15 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: fixtures: Track volume attachments within CinderFixtureNewAttachFlow https://review.openstack.org/612485 | |
| 12:50:16 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: conductor: Recreate volume attachments during a reschedule https://review.openstack.org/612487 | |
| 12:50:16 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Add regression test for bug#1784353 https://review.openstack.org/612486 | |
| 12:50:16 | sean-k-mooney | that is useful to know about | |
| 12:50:25 | moshele | aperevalov: long time ago | |
| 12:50:39 | moshele | sean-k-mooney: long time ago | |
| 12:51:02 | pvc_ | vfio_iommu_type1.allow_unsafe_interrupts=1 | |
| 12:51:07 | pvc_ | sean-k-mooney vfio_iommu_type1.allow_unsafe_interrupts=1? | |
| 12:51:19 | sean-k-mooney | moshele: cool aperevalov the intel ci does somthing similar | |
| 12:52:07 | sean-k-mooney | aperevalov: the intel ci uses the standard senario test but addes extraflaovr extraspecs for cpu pinning hugepages numa toplogy exctra | |
| 12:52:44 | aperevalov | sean-k-mooney: If I trully understood, kuryr-kubernetes (tempest test) can also be running there? | |
| 12:52:47 | sean-k-mooney | pvc_: are you getting a message in dmesg? vfio_iommu_type1.allow_unsafe_interrupts=1 is specificaly for working around old buggy hardware | |
| 12:53:28 | sean-k-mooney | aperevalov: the intel nfv ci does not load the kuryr-kuberntese tempest module or deploy tempetst | |
| 12:53:40 | sean-k-mooney | at least it didnt when i was invovled with it | |
| 12:53:52 | pvc_ | Oct 23 12:53:40 overcloud-novacompute-0 journal: 2018-10-23 12:53:40.708+0000: 3128: warning : virDomainAuditHostdev:424 : Unexpected hostdev type while en | |
| 12:53:56 | pvc_ | Oct 23 12:53:40 overcloud-novacompute-0 journal: libvirt: QEMU Driver error : Requested operation is not valid: domain is not running | |
| 12:53:58 | sean-k-mooney | * or deply kuryr-kubernetes | |
| 12:54:59 | sean-k-mooney | pvc_: i dont really have time to contiue debugging sorry. i need to update some review and catch up on spec review today | |
| 12:56:41 | pvc_ | 2018-10-23 12:41:10.331+0000: 3216: error : virPCIDeviceNew:1787 : Device 0003:01:05.1 not found: could not access /sys/bus/pci/devices/0003:01:05.1/config | |
| 12:57:57 | pvc_ | virPidFileAcquirePath:422 : Failed to acquire pid file '/var/run/libvirtd.pid': Resource temporarily unavailable | |
| 13:02:22 | pvc_ | sean-k-mooney there is an issue on my nova_libvirt | |
| 13:05:38 | sean-k-mooney | pvc_: ok but that is not an nova issue. its a either a libvirt or a docker/triplo issue assuming you can acess /sys/bus/pci/devices/0003:01:05.1/config from the host. | |
| 13:06:56 | pvc_ | there is no 0003:01:01.1 sean | |
| 13:15:10 | pvc_ | sean-k-mooney is libvirtd not running is not an issue? | |
| 13:17:42 | efried | bauzas: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/612497/ <== provider config yaml file, split out from the device passthrough spec (with some of jaypipes' Rocky provider config file mixed in) | |
| 13:19:17 | bauzas | efried: ack | |
| 13:19:53 | bauzas | I have some planned outage this EU afternoon hence me being a bit afk but will look later tonight | |
| 13:20:38 | pvc_ | bauzas Failed to acquire pid file '/var/run/libvirtd.pid': Resource temporarily unavailable :( | |
| 13:20:52 | pvc_ | bauzas fio error: cad68f60-930c-4d9b-b954-3e0cd855651e: error getting device from group 58: Input/output error | |
| 13:33:09 | pvc_ | anyone can help? | |
| 13:53:03 | pvc_ | hi sean-k-moone do i need to hide the hypervisor of the image? | |
| 13:53:12 | pvc_ | hi sean-k-mooney do i need to hide the hypervisor of the image? | |
| 13:53:13 | alex_xu | jaypipes: for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/555081, are you saying that the user must specify guest numa topology when using resources:PCPU=1 or resources:VCPU=1 | |
| 13:54:42 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: im not suer if cpu pinning auto creates a numa toplogy today but it is does not its one of the few numa specifc things that does not | |
| 13:56:16 | pvc_ | sean-k-mooney i have an error on my XML | |
| 13:56:53 | pvc_ | 2bf12bf5 - default default] Error launching a defined domain with XML: <domain type='kvm'> | |
| 13:57:29 | alex_xu | sean-k-mooney: yes, I also think that. If the flavor doesn't include any guest numa topo, then we will get a None value for the InstanceTopologyObj. But jaypipes still want to use InstnaceTopology to store the cpu pinning. that is my confuse. | |
| 13:58:49 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: well cpus have numa affintiy so i would be fine with saying if your request pinning you now have a numa toploy of 1 numa node for the vm unless you set a numa toploygy explcitly | |
| 13:58:57 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: we do this for hugepages | |
| 13:59:25 | sean-k-mooney | personly i have normally argued against that but we have too much presdent to change it at this point | |
| 13:59:26 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make CellDatabases fixture reentrant https://review.openstack.org/611665 | |
| 13:59:27 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Modify get_by_cell_and_project() to get_not_deleted_by_cell_and_projects() https://review.openstack.org/607663 | |
| 13:59:28 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Return a minimal construct for nova show when a cell is down https://review.openstack.org/591658 | |
| 13:59:28 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor scatter-gather utility to return exception objects https://review.openstack.org/607934 | |
| 13:59:28 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Minimal construct plumbing for nova list when a cell is down https://review.openstack.org/567785 | |
| 13:59:29 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Return a minimal construct for nova service-list when a cell is down https://review.openstack.org/584829 | |
| 13:59:37 | pvc_ | is that related sean-k-mooney you think? | |
| 14:00:13 | sean-k-mooney | pvc_: i dont know but im busy with 3 other things. i do not have time to help futher sorry. | |
| 14:01:09 | alex_xu | sean-k-mooney: yea, that should be ok, that is just a clarify I ask on the spec, since it isn't clear about that | |
| 14:02:41 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: for what its worth the free cpus are already tracked in the numa toployg blob in the nova db so i dont hink jay was proposing changing that | |
| 14:02:44 | alex_xu | jaypipes: ^ probably that is what I'm asking, are you plan to change the guest without numa topo to single numa cell topo | |
| 14:03:02 | jaypipes | alex_xu: *currently* there is no way for a user to get pinned CPUs without the instance_extra.numa fields containing a serialized blob of InstanceNUMATopology object. | |
| 14:03:47 | jaypipes | alex_xu: because, as you know, we couple the CPU pinning, memory page and NUMA topology stuff all together in the InstanceNUMATopology object :( | |
| 14:03:55 | sean-k-mooney | jaypipes: do we currently invent a singel numa node topology today. its been to long since i looked at the details of that code to rember that off the top of my head | |
| 14:04:04 | jaypipes | alex_xu: the cpu-resource-tracking spec proposes absolutely no changes to any of that. | |
| 14:04:43 | sean-k-mooney | jaypipes: i have you spec on my list to review but i assumed we would still contiue to do whatever we do today on that front | |
| 14:05:19 | jaypipes | sean-k-mooney: mriedem has basically shot down the possibility of cpu-resource-tracking happening in stein anyway, so I haven't been spending much time on it. :( | |
| 14:05:44 | alex_xu | jaypipes: yes, but your spec didn't say I must specify HW:NUMA_xxx stuff when I use resources:PCPU=1 | |
| 14:05:46 | mriedem | once again i am the killer of all hopes and dreams and kittens | |
| 14:06:02 | jroll | always and forever | |
| 14:06:12 | mriedem | if others think we can pull that change off in stein and are planning on devoting review time to it, then go nuts | |
| 14:06:17 | jaypipes | alex_xu: I was asked by bauzas to take all NUMA stuff out of the cpu-resource-tracking spec so he could address it in his numa spec. | |
| 14:06:58 | alex_xu | jaypipes: and what does mean for CONF.shared_cpu_set, it is for the VCPU will pinning to the CPU set of CONF.shared_cpu_set, and then I must specify HW:NUMA_xxx with resources:VCPU=1? | |
| 14:08:00 | jaypipes | alex_xu: I don't understand your question. could you rephrase? | |
| 14:08:07 | alex_xu | let me try :) | |
| 14:08:13 | jaypipes | alex_xu: CONF.cpu_shared_set already exists, btw | |
| 14:09:12 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: jaypipes so jsut looking at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/297de7fb9fbabe74b5305ef0aa82e196d5f48d5e/nova/virt/hardware.py#L1543-L1554 we create a singel node numa toplogy for the guest today if using pinning unless you say otherwise | |
| 14:09:49 | jaypipes | sean-k-mooney: right, because we've coupled CPU pinning and NUMA together into the InstanceNUMAToplogy object. | |
| 14:09:55 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: so if you just set resources:PCPU=1 then i would assume we would create a singel numa toplogy | |
| 14:10:20 | sean-k-mooney | jaypipes: ya. if you want to decouple them and fix it im happy with that idea too | |
| 14:10:37 | jaypipes | sean-k-mooney: mriedem would never approve such a gigantic change. :P | |
| 14:10:43 | alex_xu | sean-k-mooney: no, we return early at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/297de7fb9fbabe74b5305ef0aa82e196d5f48d5e/nova/virt/hardware.py#L1538, actualy it is NOne | |
| 14:11:18 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: that for shared cpus | |
| 14:11:43 | jaypipes | alex_xu: resources=VCPU:1 does not equal cpu_policy:shared | |
| 14:11:59 | sean-k-mooney | pinned cpus have cpu_policy==dedicated | |
| 14:12:00 | jaypipes | alex_xu: just another example of terrible coupling in this interface :( | |
| 14:12:06 | jaypipes | if cpu_policy == fields.CPUAllocationPolicy.SHARED: | |
| 14:12:16 | jaypipes | ^^ that is not the same as resources=VCPU:1 | |
| 14:12:27 | alex_xu | jaypipes: your spec is about decouple cpu pinning and numa. so conf.cpu_shared_set defined the pcpus which the shared VCPU is running. if the conf.cpu_shared_set=7-15, dose it means nova-compute will pin the guest vcpus to the physical cpu 7 to 15? | |
| 14:13:00 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: it will float them over that rage | |
| 14:13:07 | sean-k-mooney | *range | |
| 14:13:17 | sean-k-mooney | but it wont 1:1 pin the shared cpus | |
| 14:13:25 | jaypipes | alex_xu: no, my spec is not about decoupling CPU pinning and NUMA... my spec is about handling the allocation of dedicated CPUs in a deliberate way. My spec does not touch assignment of host processor to guest vCPU thread, which is what you are referring to. | |
| 14:13:27 | sean-k-mooney | that will be left to the kernel | |
| 14:15:10 | alex_xu | sean-k-mooney: jaypipes so for the request resources:VCPU=1, this VCPU sitll can running on the pcpu which defined in conf.cpu_dedicated_set... | |
| 14:16:27 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: with jays spec no. if i rememebre correctly jay was proposeing depercating the hw:cpu_policy extra spec and vcpu would courrespond to the shared set and PCPU reousfce woudl be from dedicated set | |
| 14:17:11 | jaypipes | alex_xu: if the virt driver isn't changed to assign one of the dedicated host CPUs, yep. But from placement (and resource tracking) perspective, we don't care about that. All we care about is that some amount of dedicated (or shared) CPU resources are being deducted from the appropriate inventory of that class of resource (either VCPU or PCPU) | |
| 14:18:14 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: jays spec is basicaly discribing how we will keep a tally count of PCPU and VCPU in placement | |
| 14:19:01 | sean-k-mooney | the asiginment of vms to host dedicated or shared cpu sets will be handeled by the virt driver not placment using the exisitng numa toplogy blob in the nova db as we do today | |
| 14:19:26 | sean-k-mooney | placement will just make sure we have enough cpus to fulltile the request without tracking which ones are free | |
| 14:19:44 | sean-k-mooney | thats the virt driver/ resouce trakers jobs | |
| 14:19:45 | jaypipes | sean-k-mooney: and yes, you're right that my spec proposes deprecating the cpu_policy extra spec. | |
| 14:21:15 | sean-k-mooney | i think i left a comment about may using it to translate the flavor VCPU filed into resouces:VCPU=X or resources:PCPU=x to ease transition but long term it would nolonger be needed | |
| 14:21:30 | alex_xu | ah....I probably I see...give me more seconds... | |
| 14:24:41 | mriedem | is tpatil intel? | |
| 14:24:51 | mriedem | oh NTT | |