| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-09-09 | |||
| 18:39:36 | dansmith | artom: isn't fixing LM for pinned non-numa instances kindof a happy side effect of this code? | |
| 18:39:42 | dansmith | but not really the primary purpose? | |
| 18:39:48 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: yes it is | |
| 18:39:59 | sean-k-mooney | so i dont think its a blocker for this | |
| 18:40:02 | artom | dansmith, it's technically a tangent, correct | |
| 18:40:09 | sean-k-mooney | its a very very latent bug/feature | |
| 18:40:12 | dansmith | yeah, so I would be fine with that being a follow-on patch *if* it makes things easier | |
| 18:40:28 | sean-k-mooney | ya i think a follow up patch makes sense | |
| 18:40:38 | sean-k-mooney | provided this does not explode | |
| 18:40:39 | dansmith | yeah, kinda like "now we have the infra in place to be able to fix this long-standing bug" | |
| 18:40:54 | dansmith | artom: make sense? | |
| 18:40:56 | artom | dansmith, hrmm. What I wanted to avoid was an objects version bump, but I suppose we could add allocation_cpu_tuning now in the object, and just not use it until the fup | |
| 18:41:17 | dansmith | oh does that require extra fields? | |
| 18:41:24 | artom | Yeah : | |
| 18:41:25 | artom | :/ | |
| 18:41:56 | dansmith | hmm, well, then maybe keeping that separate is also good just from the perspective of not increasing the scope of this already-large patch | |
| 18:42:02 | sean-k-mooney | artom: you dont need extra fileds | |
| 18:42:07 | sean-k-mooney | the ones in the current patch are enough | |
| 18:42:23 | sean-k-mooney | you jsut wont populate it if its not set on the souce or dest | |
| 18:42:42 | artom | sean-k-mooney, I mean adding allocations_cpu_pins | |
| 18:42:52 | artom | We can't get around that, reusing cpu_pins isn't an option | |
| 18:42:55 | sean-k-mooney | oh well you added that already | |
| 18:43:04 | sean-k-mooney | but yes that was an extra filed that was needed | |
| 18:43:11 | artom | sean-k-mooney, right, we're debating taking it back out to simplify things | |
| 18:43:29 | dansmith | artom: this must have been added since the last time I looked? | |
| 18:43:47 | artom | dansmith, yeah, over the weekend I think, or Friday | |
| 18:44:09 | dansmith | okay I see it now | |
| 18:44:49 | dansmith | well, I dunno.. another object bump isn't very impactful, tbh, so putting that in the follow-on patch to actually do the right thing for that case doesn't seem too bad, | |
| 18:44:57 | dansmith | but also more churn doesn't make re-review easier | |
| 18:45:05 | sean-k-mooney | if its not set then we shoudl ensure the cpuset attibute is not in the final xml othersize set it to its value | |
| 18:45:06 | dansmith | so use your judgment I think | |
| 18:45:27 | dansmith | but I think it's okay to exclude fixing that longstanding bug in your series and follow up with the actual fix, however that looks | |
| 18:46:53 | sean-k-mooney | ok so if the souce does not have vcpu_pin_set and the dest has we go form <vcpu placement='static'>1</vcpu> to <vcpu placement='static' cpuset='4-7,12-15'>1</vcpu> | |
| 18:46:54 | artom | dansmith, I know sunk costs is a fallacy, but I think at this point it'd be as much work (for me, anyways) to take it out as it would be to fix it | |
| 18:46:58 | sean-k-mooney | which is what we expect | |
| 18:47:04 | sean-k-mooney | now to check the other way around | |
| 18:47:12 | dansmith | artom: copy that | |
| 18:47:15 | artom | sean-k-mooney, I expect that to be broken | |
| 18:47:24 | sean-k-mooney | well it works correctly | |
| 18:47:45 | sean-k-mooney | source no vcpu_pin_set dest vcpu_pin_set works | |
| 18:47:54 | sean-k-mooney | i need to test the other way now | |
| 18:48:02 | artom | Yes *that's* the broken bit :) | |
| 18:48:54 | sean-k-mooney | kind of | |
| 18:49:04 | sean-k-mooney | it migrated but did not update | |
| 18:49:10 | sean-k-mooney | which is the existing master behavior | |
| 18:49:28 | artom | Yeah, it's what I mean by broken | |
| 18:49:35 | artom | Technically I could it as is :D | |
| 18:49:37 | sean-k-mooney | and a hard reboot fixes it | |
| 18:49:39 | artom | Talk about half-assed | |
| 18:49:52 | artom | "I started fixing it, but then I saw something shiny" | |
| 18:50:18 | sean-k-mooney | well you fix 3 or the 4 combindations | |
| 18:50:32 | sean-k-mooney | it works when the dest has it set or both have it set | |
| 18:50:40 | sean-k-mooney | just not when the souce only has it set | |
| 18:51:12 | sean-k-mooney | so that is better then without your code by a large margin and in the final case it matains the old behavior | |
| 18:51:58 | artom | Eh, I'd not be comfortable leaving it as is | |
| 18:51:59 | sean-k-mooney | so its better or equal to the old behavior so i woudl leave it in and maybe add a todo which we can fix and backport later when we have time | |
| 18:52:02 | artom | Take out completely, sure | |
| 18:52:06 | artom | Fix it, yeah | |
| 18:52:17 | artom | But not this half-assedness | |
| 18:52:57 | sean-k-mooney | ok well its up to you. either fix it or revert it out. im going to get stuff for dinner then contiue reviewing | |
| 18:53:15 | sean-k-mooney | ill be afk for about an hour then ill be back | |
| 18:53:48 | artom | sean-k-mooney, cheers! | |
| 19:09:08 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Add min service level check for migrate with bandwidth https://review.opendev.org/680394 | |
| 19:10:09 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: migrate: Add bw min service level check of source compute https://review.opendev.org/680395 | |
| 19:21:00 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: resize: Add bw min service level check of source compute https://review.opendev.org/680396 | |
| 19:21:09 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: prepare func test env for moving servers with bandwidth https://review.opendev.org/655109 | |
| 19:33:48 | artom | mriedem, finished addressing your "code" feedback, the tests feedback will be after school run and supper | |
| 19:34:23 | artom | Oh, there's still https://review.opendev.org/#/c/634606/75/nova/compute/manager.py@7223 | |
| 19:34:30 | artom | dansmith, ^^ you might have ideas, if you have time | |
| 19:34:40 | artom | Sorry to ping and run, but that's what I have to do | |
| 20:12:27 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Func test for migrate server with ports having resource request https://review.opendev.org/655113 | |
| 20:19:00 | openstackgerrit | Shilpa Devharakar proposed openstack/nova master: Nova object changes for forbidden aggregates request filter https://review.opendev.org/671072 | |
| 20:19:01 | openstackgerrit | Shilpa Devharakar proposed openstack/nova master: Add a new request filter to isolate aggregates https://review.opendev.org/671075 | |
| 20:19:01 | openstackgerrit | Shilpa Devharakar proposed openstack/nova master: DB API changes to get non-matching aggregates from metadata https://review.opendev.org/671074 | |
| 20:19:02 | openstackgerrit | Shilpa Devharakar proposed openstack/nova master: Docs for isolated aggregates request filter https://review.opendev.org/667952 | |
| 20:23:18 | dansmith | efried: around? | |
| 20:23:23 | efried | dansmith: yah | |
| 20:23:47 | dansmith | efried: gibi was +2 on this before I found one more thing that needed fixing in the object: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/671072/17..18/nova/objects/request_spec.py | |
| 20:23:56 | efried | yah | |
| 20:23:59 | dansmith | efried: permission to fast-approve since she made the change | |
| 20:24:02 | efried | please do | |
| 20:24:38 | efried | she had to fix some stuff up the pile for the new non-defaulting-to-set() as well. | |
| 20:25:31 | dansmith | I saw | |
| 20:25:55 | dansmith | efried: this one had a couple test tweaks from me which she also did, so I shan't fast-approve it, but maybe you can skim and get it underway: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/671075/20 | |
| 20:26:06 | efried | on it now | |
| 20:26:52 | dansmith | I don't think I've looked at the doc patch since it was megasplit so I'll leave that to you and gibi which have looked recently | |
| 20:29:47 | efried | ack. Thanks for your work on this dansmith | |
| 20:30:14 | shilpasd | dansmith: Gibi: Eric:Stephan: thank you for review | |
| 20:30:48 | dansmith | aye | |
| 20:52:05 | openstackgerrit | Shilpa Devharakar proposed openstack/nova master: Docs for isolated aggregates request filter https://review.opendev.org/667952 | |
| 20:52:06 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: uncover func tests with mismatched allocations https://review.opendev.org/681122 | |
| 21:12:13 | melwitt | mriedem: downstream this bug (fill_virtual_interface_list fails on second attempt) was hit and they proposed a patch with a different approach from the workaround you had worked on the past. I'm curious what you think about it https://review.opendev.org/678776 | |
| 21:20:03 | mriedem | ack, just getting caught up with scrollback | |
| 21:22:51 | mriedem | dansmith: so tl;dr on artom's series is we're not sure about all of the non-numa vpu pinning stuff that was recently added? | |
| 21:23:13 | mriedem | yeah this "now we have the infra in place to be able to fix this long-standing bug" | |
| 21:23:28 | artom | mriedem, sean-k-mooney tested it, there's an edge case that we're missing, but otherwise we're pretty confident | |
| 21:23:29 | mriedem | that's what i was thinking about that cpu pinning stuff being munged in | |
| 21:23:44 | artom | As I said to dansmith, at this point, it'd be more work to yank it out than to fix it | |
| 21:24:04 | artom | But I can go either way, if we want to be safe | |
| 21:24:30 | artom | It is indeed technically out of scope, for a long-standing latent thing | |