| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-06-12 | |||
| 15:57:56 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 16:01:18 | stephenfin | mriedem: Cool. I spotted some other things when rebasing. Comments left and I've a follow-up patch I'll post. Feel free to squash it into yours if you want | |
| 16:01:56 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Drop pre-cinder 3.44 version compatibility https://review.opendev.org/621061 | |
| 16:01:57 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Follow-up for I6a777b4b7a5729488f939df8c40e49bd40aec3dd https://review.opendev.org/664967 | |
| 16:01:57 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Remove 'MultiattachNotSupportedByVirtDriver' https://review.opendev.org/651315 | |
| 16:03:48 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Remove 'MultiattachSupportNotYetAvailable' exception https://review.opendev.org/651315 | |
| 16:07:48 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: func test for migrate server with ports having resource request https://review.opendev.org/655113 | |
| 16:07:48 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: prepare func test env for moving servers with bandwidth https://review.opendev.org/655109 | |
| 16:14:03 | Nick_A | Do you guys have any tips for what we should look at to determine why cloud-init is working properly for us on lxd but not kvm? | |
| 16:18:50 | sean-k-mooney | if its working on lxd then the nova metadata service is working properly | |
| 16:19:41 | sean-k-mooney | it might be a diffrence in how netwroking works | |
| 16:20:18 | sean-k-mooney | you really need to try and trace the request | |
| 16:21:04 | sean-k-mooney | so if you can log into one of your kvm instnce try an curl the metadata api via the 169... adress | |
| 16:22:03 | sean-k-mooney | if you dont have a vm image with a password set for debuging then you can enable config drive to initally be able to log in to the vm and debug the issue | |
| 16:24:33 | Nick_A | thank you | |
| 16:34:42 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: flatten rbd images when unshelving an instance https://review.opendev.org/457886 | |
| 16:37:58 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Add extra spec parameter and image property for memory encryption https://review.opendev.org/664420 | |
| 16:42:45 | mriedem | stephenfin: this shouldn't be stable-only i don't think but you might want to verify if the bug is legit https://review.opendev.org/#/c/664838/1 | |
| 16:48:59 | aspiers | efried: Slightly out of my depth here. So shall I go ahead and change spawn() to persist allocations as a new field in the Instance object? | |
| 16:50:42 | efried | aspiers: I wasn't following whatever conversation led up to this | |
| 16:51:00 | efried | Is something we're doing with SEV requiring us to be able to look at the allocation some time after spawn? | |
| 16:51:10 | efried | or is this related to some other topic? | |
| 16:51:11 | aspiers | Yes | |
| 16:51:18 | efried | Do tell | |
| 16:51:42 | aspiers | http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2019-06-12.log.html#t2019-06-12T12:50:55 | |
| 16:52:14 | aspiers | There are multiple places scattered through the code for building the guest config XML which need to know whether SEV is required | |
| 16:52:40 | aspiers | but to perform the check in the way you requested, allocations need to be accessible at those points | |
| 16:53:00 | efried | say wha now? | |
| 16:53:13 | efried | you're telling me that every time libvirt attaches a volume, it rebuilds the whole XML from scratch? | |
| 16:53:20 | aspiers | no | |
| 16:53:31 | aspiers | it needs to know whether to use iommu | |
| 16:53:32 | efried | you're telling me that attaching a volume needs to be SEV aware? | |
| 16:53:45 | aspiers | not necessarily even attaching a volume | |
| 16:54:00 | efried | okay, I see. | |
| 16:54:02 | aspiers | just block devices and stuff at launch-time | |
| 16:54:18 | aspiers | and also to decide whether to include <locked /> | |
| 16:54:30 | aspiers | the latest 3 commits at the top of the series | |
| 16:55:00 | efried | However, in this scenario, you could also solve by commonizing (libvirt/utils?) the code that inspects the flavor/image meta. | |
| 16:55:00 | efried | I think long term, having allocations on the instance object is a great idea. mriedem, dansmith, how do y'all feel about that? | |
| 16:55:19 | dansmith | efried: why? | |
| 16:55:25 | aspiers | Yes, that possibility occurred to me too | |
| 16:56:42 | efried | dansmith: example here is SEV. We were considering doing the flavor/image parsing and validation just once, in the request filter, to add resources=MEM_ENCRYPTION_CONTEXT. Then after that, e.g. in spawn(), just looking at the allocation for MEM_ENCRYPTION_CONTEXT so we don't have to redo that parsing/validation. | |
| 16:57:12 | aspiers | here's sean-k-mooney's take: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2019-06-12.log.html#t2019-06-12T13:13:16 | |
| 16:57:18 | efried | In spawn specifically, we are getting the allocation as a param, so that's fine. But there are (aspiers tells me) other places where we need the same information but don't (currently) have access to the allocations. | |
| 16:57:21 | dansmith | spawn having access to the allocations makes sense, but storing them on/with the instance doesn't really | |
| 16:57:52 | aspiers | here's an example: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/662558/5/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py | |
| 16:58:08 | dansmith | I imagine bauzas would want access to allocations for gpu stuff as well, and I'm sure we discussed making that a param to spawn in the past | |
| 16:58:15 | aspiers | currently this is broken because it's insufficient to pass only the flavor to _sev_required() | |
| 16:58:23 | efried | allocations are already passed to spawn | |
| 16:58:33 | dansmith | ack, okay I was sure we had discussed | |
| 16:58:36 | aspiers | right, the problem is that they are not passed much further on | |
| 16:58:58 | aspiers | sean-k-mooney's other suggestion was to pass from spawn() to _get_guest_xml() and so on | |
| 16:59:21 | dansmith | yeah, pass them further if you want, but storing them .. no so much | |
| 16:59:33 | aspiers | but that doesn't solve things like attaching volumes to an SEV instance | |
| 16:59:39 | efried | you could cache a map of instance:allocations on the virt driver | |
| 16:59:47 | dansmith | efried: dude | |
| 16:59:53 | efried | but if you restart the compute driver you'd have to rebuild that by querying placement | |
| 16:59:57 | dansmith | aspiers: so look them up and pass them in if you need | |
| 17:00:09 | efried | we've said we don't like virt drivers talking to placement | |
| 17:00:19 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 17:00:31 | efried | though I guess `read` may be acceptable | |
| 17:00:32 | dansmith | and caching placement data is also smelly, IMHO | |
| 17:00:46 | dansmith | efried: no, make compute manager look them up and pass them in | |
| 17:01:04 | efried | dansmith: You mean augment every ComputeDriver method to accept allocations? | |
| 17:01:30 | dansmith | surely we don't need them on every call | |
| 17:01:40 | efried | creeping death of a thousand cuts | |
| 17:02:15 | efried | we already store other (pre-placement) allocation-like things on the Instance, don't we? PCI devices and such? | |
| 17:02:31 | dansmith | but we own those things | |
| 17:02:40 | dansmith | we cache the neutron port information and it's a disaster | |
| 17:03:02 | efried | why? | |
| 17:03:12 | efried | because that information can get changed via neutron? | |
| 17:03:19 | efried | and then we have to figure out how to sync it? | |
| 17:03:24 | efried | In this case nova does "own" the information. | |
| 17:03:30 | efried | the allocation should not change unless nova changes it | |
| 17:03:36 | efried | whereupon we're editing the Instance obj anyway. | |
| 17:03:58 | aspiers | so how would something like DriverVolumeBlockDevice.attach() get hold of allocations? | |
| 17:04:04 | dansmith | okay, whatever, you asked my my opinion.. I hate it. My opinion doesn't matter anyway, only mriedem's, so just do whatever he says | |
| 17:04:10 | aspiers | if not via the Instance? | |
| 17:04:43 | aspiers | (Yes, that is an honest stupid question) | |
| 17:04:54 | efried | aspiers: If I'm understanding dansmith correctly, he's suggesting adding an allocations param to attach_volume and then passing it down through the call stack to DVBD.attach() | |
| 17:05:17 | efried | doing that ^ as needed every time we encounter a ComputeDriver operation who(se guts) require access to the allocation | |
| 17:05:21 | aspiers | efried: so through attach_volume() in the manager? | |
| 17:05:40 | efried | yup. The compute manager would call placement to get the allocations for the instance before invoking the method. | |
| 17:05:54 | aspiers | it seems pretty much every instance lifecycle method is already passing context and instance through | |
| 17:06:00 | efried | yes | |
| 17:07:43 | aspiers | looks like adding allocations would bloat the already long parameter lists of many methods | |
| 17:08:26 | aspiers | long parameter lists seem like a code smell to me in general, but I don't really enough about nova to judge here | |
| 17:08:51 | aspiers | I'll do whatever you gurus think is best :) | |
| 17:08:57 | efried | let's see what mriedem thinks | |
| 17:09:00 | aspiers | OK | |
| 17:09:37 | dansmith | we have virtapi for compute drivers to ask compute manger for help. compute manager already has an in-memory cache of a bunch of this information, so letting the driver ask manager for allocation info for an instance when it needs it, which can be a readthrough cache operation would also be reasonable | |
| 17:10:05 | efried | ah, that could work. What's that virtapi called? | |
| 17:10:41 | dansmith | storing this on the instance is pointless to me because I think we always need to get it from placement to be sure it's right I think, and the instance record is already a massive thing we shoot across the stressed RPC bus with a ton of extra crap we don't need 90% of the time | |
| 17:11:02 | efried | ComputeDriver.virtapi... | |
| 17:11:06 | dansmith | but, as I said, it matters only what mriedem thinks, so ... no point in even discussing until he opines | |
| 17:11:28 | aspiers | RPC bloat sounds like a very valid concern | |
| 17:16:23 | sean-k-mooney | RPC bloat being the reason not to put it in the instance? | |
| 17:16:40 | aspiers | that's how I interpreted what dansmith said | |
| 17:16:47 | efried | This virtapi thing is pretty small right now, basically just has wait_for_instance_event | |
| 17:16:51 | aspiers | yeah | |