| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-08-19 | |||
| 07:34:50 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Fix wrong assertions in unit tests https://review.opendev.org/677102 | |
| 07:51:10 | openstackgerrit | Vieri proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add Python 3 Train unit tests https://review.opendev.org/675908 | |
| 08:22:57 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Microversion 2.75 - Multiple API cleanup changes https://review.opendev.org/676275 | |
| 09:17:18 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Tests: autospecs all the mock.patch usages https://review.opendev.org/470775 | |
| 09:36:44 | aspiers | o/ | |
| 09:36:47 | aspiers | anyone around? | |
| 09:36:56 | aspiers | I just had an idea | |
| 09:37:59 | aspiers | Could write a script a bit like tools/flake8wrap.sh -HEAD, but specifically for running tests | |
| 09:38:29 | aspiers | Actually, I could just write a Guardfile | |
| 09:38:36 | aspiers | Can't quite believe I didn't think of that before | |
| 09:39:10 | aspiers | Ah, Python has watchdog | |
| 10:08:36 | bhagyashris | stephenfin: Hi, I saw you have send mail on mailing list #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-August/008501.html ... So what will be the exact plan for upgrade ... actually I was working on functional test part | |
| 10:09:48 | stephenfin | bhagyashris: I'm still trying to decide | |
| 10:09:59 | stephenfin | But I _think_ I'm going to go with the global config option | |
| 10:10:23 | stephenfin | Something like 'pcpus_in_placement' that will default to False in Train and True in U | |
| 10:10:43 | stephenfin | That'll be set on both the compute node and controller | |
| 10:11:13 | stephenfin | Once you've upgraded everything to Train, you'll toggle the config option on the controller, followed by the config options on the compute node | |
| 10:13:35 | bhagyashris | Okay and then that will translate the flavor extra specs at controller node and will report the PCPU inventory at placement side .... Right? | |
| 10:13:44 | stephenfin | once toggled, yes | |
| 10:13:49 | stephenfin | and do the reshape | |
| 10:14:19 | stephenfin | Until it's toggled though, the compute nodes will not report PCPUs, the extra specs will not be translated, and the reshape will not occur | |
| 10:18:09 | bhagyashris | And if the global config option set is false that means not toggle and user defines the cpu_dedicated_set then in that case what will happen? | |
| 10:18:28 | stephenfin | We error out | |
| 10:19:42 | bhagyashris | stephenfin: means 'pcpus_in_placement' and the cpu config options should be set properly by operator | |
| 10:20:06 | stephenfin | Well, by the deployment tool they're using | |
| 10:20:24 | stephenfin | Actuallly | |
| 10:20:37 | stephenfin | We don't necessarily need to set 'pcpus_in_placement' | |
| 10:20:45 | stephenfin | ...on the compute nodes | |
| 10:21:23 | stephenfin | We could just say "set 'pcpus_in_placement'" on the controller, and then set 'cpu_dedicated_set' and 'cpu_shared_set' on the compute nodes | |
| 10:22:33 | stephenfin | However, fwiw, I wouldn't worry about this too much right now. I assume you're still testing things out? This should only affect upgrades and nothing else | |
| 10:24:45 | bhagyashris | Yeah actually I was fixing the review comments that you have given patch https://review.opendev.org/#/c/674895/ and also added the functional test case for upgrade ... but looking at the recent patch set you have added the functional test ... so that makes the duplications of efforts | |
| 10:26:40 | stephenfin | Yeah, I've reworked the reshape to address one of my comments. I don't know how much sense the new approach makes. I know mriedem has some comments left that I need to address | |
| 10:26:45 | bhagyashris | stephenfin: and from above discussion it seems that upgrade will need some changes | |
| 10:27:34 | bhagyashris | stephenfin: okay .. | |
| 10:28:52 | bhagyashris | stephenfin: I just have one question from above discussion you said that "set 'pcpus_in_placement'" on the controller, and then set 'cpu_dedicated_set' and 'cpu_shared_set' on the compute nodes and We don't necessarily need to set 'pcpus_in_placement' on compute node | |
| 10:29:05 | stephenfin | yup? | |
| 10:29:53 | bhagyashris | So in that case if the 'pcpus_in_placement' = false at controller node and at co mute if I define the cpu_dedicated_set then this will report the PCPU as inventory at placement | |
| 10:30:12 | bhagyashris | And the instance request will ask for VCPU in that case | |
| 10:30:15 | bhagyashris | Right? | |
| 10:30:28 | bhagyashris | Then that looks like issue then | |
| 10:30:40 | stephenfin | Yeah, and that's an issue. I was thinking we'd check to see if PCPUs were reported by any compute node and error out if so | |
| 10:30:53 | stephenfin | I haven't thought through it properly yet though | |
| 10:31:32 | bhagyashris | stephenfin: okay | |
| 10:32:35 | stephenfin | There's one other thing I can do, which is add a check on the compute node to see if I'm requesting PCPUs (either directly or through 'hw:cpu_policy' and just hard fail if so. That would involve making a request to placement to get allocations though and I'm not sure we can do that. | |
| 10:32:46 | stephenfin | As you can see, this is very much in flux at the moment :( | |
| 10:37:11 | bhagyashris | stephenfin: yeah, | |
| 10:45:02 | bhagyashris | if any idea will comes to my mind I will let you know | |
| 11:11:15 | openstackgerrit | Andreas Jaeger proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Remove experimental job on openSUSE 42.3 https://review.opendev.org/677176 | |
| 11:12:52 | openstackgerrit | Andreas Jaeger proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: Remove experimental job on openSUSE 42.3 https://review.opendev.org/677177 | |
| 11:14:04 | openstackgerrit | Andreas Jaeger proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Remove experimental job on openSUSE 42.3 https://review.opendev.org/677178 | |
| 11:15:20 | alex_xu | stephenfin: I replied your email, but not sure I understand the problem fully | |
| 11:16:10 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Specify availability_zone to unshelve https://review.opendev.org/663851 | |
| 11:26:18 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Make it easier to run a selection of tests relevant to ongoing work https://review.opendev.org/677180 | |
| 11:26:23 | aspiers | stephenfin, alex_xu: happy Monday ;-) ^^^^ | |
| 11:29:57 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Make it easier to run a selection of tests relevant to ongoing work https://review.opendev.org/677180 | |
| 11:50:08 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Switch some GitHub URLs to point to opendev.org https://review.opendev.org/677185 | |
| 12:21:33 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Fix wrong assertions in unit tests https://review.opendev.org/677102 | |
| 12:23:33 | yonglihe | stephenfin: Hi, good morning. | |
| 12:27:46 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Tests: autospecs all the mock.patch usages https://review.opendev.org/470775 | |
| 12:37:46 | sean-k-mooney | yonglihe: i have not seen stephenfin online yet today | |
| 12:38:17 | sean-k-mooney | he proably is around but im guessing he is still catching up on email/gerrit after the weekend | |
| 12:42:04 | stephenfin | no, I'm here | |
| 12:42:28 | stephenfin | (sean-k-mooney: See discussion with bhagyashris from earlier :)) | |
| 12:42:57 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: ah ok sorry | |
| 12:43:07 | sean-k-mooney | yep i missed that | |
| 12:44:10 | stephenfin | yonglihe: Those patches are on my list, but there's a big queue of stuff ahead of them. I'll get to it eventually :) | |
| 12:47:12 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Microversion 2.77: Support Specifying AZ to unshelve https://review.opendev.org/665136 | |
| 12:49:49 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: did you reach any decision with the path forward for PCPU upgrades | |
| 13:01:05 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: I'm still on the fence, tbh | |
| 13:01:37 | sean-k-mooney | i think the global + 3 cycle process will be the safest | |
| 13:01:38 | stephenfin | I'm leaning towards the global config option still, but we're going to need some way to ensure people don't toggle it on the compute node first | |
| 13:01:55 | sean-k-mooney | ya | |
| 13:03:18 | sean-k-mooney | i think our best way to prevent that is to work with the intaller project to support enabling it | |
| 13:03:27 | stephenfin | I think so too | |
| 13:03:36 | stephenfin | But I've no idea how to fix things if people do it wrong | |
| 13:03:49 | stephenfin | We're kind of handing people a loaded gun here | |
| 13:03:53 | sean-k-mooney | e.g how to rever a reshape | |
| 13:04:19 | sean-k-mooney | ya it is. its not the only one we have given people in the past | |
| 13:04:27 | stephenfin | Pretty much | |
| 13:04:31 | stephenfin | Or how to keep reshaping | |
| 13:05:18 | sean-k-mooney | have we talked to the OSA,kolla or triplo folk about it yet? | |
| 13:06:07 | sean-k-mooney | i know we plan to go over the triplo stuff internally with our deployment folks but did any of the install project comment on your ml post | |
| 13:06:41 | stephenfin | efried: I've started discussing it with TripleO guys, of course | |
| 13:06:54 | stephenfin | But not OSA or Kolla. I don't think Kolla supported pinned CPUs as a rule atm | |
| 13:07:21 | stephenfin | I recall being in a call where there was talk of it at a previous summit but I don't know how much further it went | |
| 13:09:46 | stephenfin | efried: I've noticed that there are many more gaps in test coverage with that privsep series. Are you okay with a giant follow-up to close said gaps? | |
| 13:09:57 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Add extra spec parameter and image property for memory encryption https://review.opendev.org/664420 | |
| 13:10:14 | stephenfin | Cos I'll have to recuse myself from reviews if I go add said missing tests to each patch | |
| 13:10:38 | stephenfin | unless you're happy to single +2 the tests, that is | |
| 13:10:43 | efried | stephenfin: I have no doubt there are gaps in test coverage overall, but what bugs me is the coverage being reduced by each patch. Is that what you're talking about? | |
| 13:10:44 | aspiers | stephenfin: responses to your feedback there ^^^ | |
| 13:10:56 | stephenfin | efried: Yeah, that specifically | |
| 13:11:11 | stephenfin | i.e. missing tests in nova/tests/unit/privsep | |
| 13:11:13 | stephenfin | aspiers: sweet | |
| 13:11:17 | efried | In that case, yes, a fup is good for me, but I'll want to wait to merge a given patch until its coverage is at least proposed. | |
| 13:11:50 | aspiers | stephenfin: but you might find more enjoyment in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/677180/ | |
| 13:12:00 | efried | and yes, good plan wrt reviews, since it's tough to convince other cores to care about that series, we should take advantage of the two of us being willing to dig into it :P | |
| 13:12:01 | aspiers | efried: you too :) | |
| 13:12:41 | aspiers | my dream is never having to *manually* run tests locally again | |
| 13:12:52 | aspiers | just edit files and watch things turn red or green | |