Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-02-26
16:36:28 mriedem i know port binding attributes require admin
16:37:09 gibi mriedem: I will check with the neutron guys in my team
16:40:43 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Improve CinderFixtureNewAttachFlow https://review.openstack.org/639382
16:40:43 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Fix the leak in the cross-cell revert resize code https://review.openstack.org/638314
16:45:52 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/os-vif master: docs: Add API docs for profile, datapath offload types https://review.openstack.org/638395
16:52:58 sean-k-mooney jaypipes: stephenfin im planning on working on working on some os-vif gate jobs after stien feature freeze. would you object to me skipping the tempest jobs in os-vif if the change is only affecting the docs directory.
16:54:17 sean-k-mooney the other tox jobs are quick but if it is a docs only change ore release not only change tempest adds little vlaue
16:55:46 stephenfin fine by me
17:04:17 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: DNM: For testing only https://review.openstack.org/620592
17:06:58 openstackgerrit melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Use instance mappings to count server group members https://review.openstack.org/638324
17:06:58 openstackgerrit melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: WIP Count instances from mappings and cores/ram from placement https://review.openstack.org/638073
17:10:44 gibi mriedem: fyi. If I delete a bound port then nova gets notification from neutron, but If I just update the device_id and device_owner field of the port then nova does not get notification
17:16:26 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Dump config options on wsgi startup earlier https://review.openstack.org/638691
17:21:33 openstackgerrit Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Correct lower-constraints.txt and the related tox job https://review.openstack.org/622972
17:26:03 jaypipes sean-k-mooney: +1 to skip func tests if change in docs dir
17:33:47 mriedem gibi: hmm ok so i guess we have to handle the network-vif-deleted event right?
17:36:06 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: [Doc] Best practices for effectively tolerating down cells https://review.openstack.org/638173
17:37:51 openstackgerrit Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: [Broken WIP] Split external events handling into 2 steps https://review.openstack.org/639396
17:48:04 artom dansmith, so, you've just made me have an epiphany
17:48:26 artom I thought the claims would provide extra checking that the instance will fit
17:48:32 artom But no, the scheduler already does that
17:48:45 artom If the scheduler accepted a host, the claim will work.
17:49:00 artom The problem is that we never updated the XML, not that we allowed unacceptable hosts
17:49:10 dansmith artom: no, that's not true
17:49:21 artom Unless the host was forced
17:49:25 sean-k-mooney well it does but only to the extent that it check that something else has not raced with you for resouce on that host
17:49:25 artom dansmith, no?
17:49:34 dansmith artom: the scheduler may send you four instances that it thinks will fit into the last slot
17:49:44 sean-k-mooney ya ^
17:49:52 artom Ah, that problem.
17:50:03 artom OK, so my original reply that I'm writing stands.
17:50:05 dansmith artom: since the scheduler does not reserve/lock/claim numa resources when it makes a decision, there's no context between decisions to make sure they don't overlap
17:50:07 artom Lemme finish it up.
17:50:29 artom Essentially, we need the claim to happen before driver.cclmad()
17:51:08 artom dansmith, ok, replies in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/634828/28
17:51:16 sean-k-mooney cclmad -> check_can_live_migrate_at_destination?
17:52:25 artom Yeah, at some point I need to shorten stuff
17:53:12 sean-k-mooney artom: just dont do tha in the code...
17:53:56 artom Hrmm, unless we do manager.cclmad() -> driver.cclmad() -> source.cclmas() -> put instance_numa_topology into migrate_data -> driver.cclmad() returns -> manager checks for presence of instance_numa_topology -> claims -> driver.new_method_that_returns_NUMAMIgrateData
17:54:35 dansmith artom: isn't that what I suggested?
17:54:51 artom dansmith, I hadn't groked that last new_method part
17:55:51 artom Then we'd have some instance live migrating with a claim and migration_context, and some without
17:55:55 artom Is that acceptable?
17:56:31 artom Or do we still do the claim regardless, and just call that new_NUMAMigrateData method conditionally?
17:57:25 dansmith well, I was going to ask somewhere else about this.. it's unfortunate to have a bunch of new hosts that don't do claims until all the hosts are upgraded and then you've migrated everything around one step to the left
17:57:43 dansmith but, obviously if you need the source to do the pin config in the xml, it's tough
17:58:24 dansmith but yeah, I think you always call the new method, and that method does the claim iff the source indicated during its pre-check that it's going to do the xml manip for you
17:58:43 dansmith instead of you doing it before you called to the host based on educated guessing
17:59:38 artom dansmith, ok, and that's a nicely elegant solution to the upgrades problem
17:59:49 dansmith s'mah point
18:00:08 artom You know, a gracious "thank you" would have been even better ;)
18:00:19 dansmith GAWD
18:00:40 artom Who do you think you are, Han Solo? With your "I know"s
18:00:41 artom :D
18:00:42 openstackgerrit Chris Friesen proposed openstack/nova master: Add emulated TPM support to Nova https://review.openstack.org/631363
18:01:15 dansmith I'm going to assume that is a very impressive deep reference that, if I got it, would be hilarious
18:01:40 artom I'm secure in my references and don't need no validation
18:01:47 artom (Unlike in my code)
18:02:08 dansmith heh
18:05:07 mriedem it's when leia tells han she loves him
18:05:08 mriedem duh
18:05:21 mriedem or wait, the other way around?
18:06:01 dansmith mriedem: so artom is leia and I'm solo? I'm okay with that I guess.
18:06:18 artom That backfired slightly
18:06:32 mriedem according to this tshirt, yes https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Shirt-Medium-Heather/dp/B078Z1Z1BG/ref=asc_df_B078Z1Z1BG/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=319000730304&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=18017460218835467438&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1020048&hvtargid=pla-659942629837&psc=1
18:06:33 artom (Nothing against Leia, she's badass - but the implication is that I, err, yeah)
18:07:03 mriedem dansmith is a scruffy looking nerf herder
18:07:22 artom Nerd herder, even - reviewing all our codes
18:07:35 dansmith we should maybe move on
18:22:32 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/os-vif master: Add native implementation OVSDB API https://review.openstack.org/482226
19:00:18 aspiers efried: I've pinned down the test failure to an interaction with test_pci_sriov_servers.SRIOVServersTest.test_create_server_with_pci_dev_and_numa_fails
19:00:24 aspiers efried: investigating further now
19:11:03 efried aspiers: cool. And weird. wtf?
19:11:11 efried probably some closure somewhere.
19:11:12 aspiers yeah, right :)
19:11:14 aspiers haha
19:11:17 aspiers probably my fault
19:11:37 efried you try to do something nice...
19:11:48 aspiers I guess the other test is bringing in different traits, and they are hanging around
19:12:06 aspiers although I thought each test would do sufficient teardown to avoid that
19:12:56 cfriesen sean-k-mooney: do you know if linux supports TPM 2.0 with CRB?
19:26:57 cfriesen Should nova verify whether helper utilities are present if they're needed by libvirt to provide a service? The alternative would be to fail at instance creation time.
19:27:38 cfriesen (this is in the context of vTPM, I'm wondering if I should check whether "swtpm" is available before advertising TPM support in placement)
19:36:44 mriedem dansmith: do you happen to remember the thought process when adding the Migration.hidden attribute here? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/181110/
19:36:55 mriedem nothing ever actually sets that to True anywhere
19:36:58 mriedem but we expose it in the API
19:36:58 dansmith it was dubious, but yeah,
19:37:11 dansmith when we started to expose live migrations as migrations,
19:37:28 dansmith there was concern that operators may want to be able to hide the shuffling they do behind the scenes,
19:37:37 dansmith so we added that for the future backlash
19:37:59 dansmith not sure why we expose it in the api though, it's supposed to be a "do we display this in the api or not" flag
19:38:09 mriedem hmm, but GET /os-migrations is admin-only anyway
19:38:45 dansmith by default
19:38:48 mriedem sure
19:38:53 dansmith just sayin'
19:38:56 dansmith that was the reasoning
19:39:03 mriedem anyway, it's come up in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636224/ as an alternative to filtering duplicate migrations by updated_at
19:39:29 mriedem because with cross-cell resize i'm hiding the instance using this instance.hidden field, and it would be pretty simple to do the same for migration.hidden,
19:39:35 mriedem but i'd have to thnk about implications to that API
19:40:35 mriedem especially because we have changes-since and changes-before filters on GET /os-migrations now too, so filtering duplicates based on updated_at is error prone

Earlier   Later