| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-09-12 | |||
| 16:25:21 | stephenfin | or when? | |
| 16:25:46 | sean-k-mooney | when numa is modles in palcmeent. it will add the request to the un numbered group | |
| 16:26:13 | sean-k-mooney | but if you had hw_numa_nodes=2 in the image and resources:PCPU=2 in the falvor it would fial | |
| 16:26:25 | sean-k-mooney | you would have to use teh numbered resouce request synatx | |
| 16:26:31 | sean-k-mooney | in the flavor instead | |
| 16:27:01 | stephenfin | in a future where NUMA is in placement, yes, you would need to use a different syntax | |
| 16:27:03 | sean-k-mooney | so we dont want to encurage resources:PCPU as it leaks implmeantion details of placmenet via the nova api | |
| 16:27:21 | stephenfin | but that's the same for requesting resource:VCPU if you use NUMA without placement | |
| 16:27:25 | stephenfin | and we already support that | |
| 16:27:31 | stephenfin | (requesting resources:VCPU) | |
| 16:27:38 | sean-k-mooney | yes that is also bad | |
| 16:27:41 | stephenfin | mainly for ironic but anyone can use it | |
| 16:27:50 | sean-k-mooney | i get why this raw syntax exists | |
| 16:27:52 | sean-k-mooney | but its fragile | |
| 16:28:07 | sean-k-mooney | and leaking placmenet detail via nova api | |
| 16:28:34 | stephenfin | that's a fair opinion | |
| 16:28:39 | stephenfin | but going back to the original point | |
| 16:28:51 | stephenfin | "--property hw:cpu_policy=dedicated --property resources:PCPU=2" is a no-no | |
| 16:29:04 | stephenfin | as is "-property resources:PCPU=2 --property hw:cpu_thread_policy=prefer" | |
| 16:29:12 | sean-k-mooney | i expect that to work if the PCPUs match the flavor.vcpus | |
| 16:29:17 | melwitt | fwiw when we have unified limits users are going to know all about placement resources, that's how they set limits | |
| 16:29:29 | dansmith | which is a good thing, IMHO | |
| 16:29:29 | stephenfin | you want either | |
| 16:29:34 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: that shoudl definetly work | |
| 16:29:36 | melwitt | yeah, just saying | |
| 16:29:46 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: prefer is the most relaxed policy | |
| 16:30:04 | stephenfin | it's not the prefer bit that's the issue | |
| 16:30:07 | sean-k-mooney | if you say nothing its a stricter requirement | |
| 16:30:27 | stephenfin | it's the fact that you're mixing the old way of doing this and the new way | |
| 16:30:58 | stephenfin | I want to be very clear and say you either do things with resources:PCPU and traits:HW_CPU_HYPERTHREADING | |
| 16:30:58 | sean-k-mooney | this is not what i understood form the spec | |
| 16:31:11 | stephenfin | or with hw:cpu_policy and hw:cpu_thread_policy | |
| 16:31:35 | mriedem | we should probably start an etherpad for post-FF release todos huh....like documenting PCPUs | |
| 16:31:38 | sean-k-mooney | ill change the tst to work but i think this is a problem | |
| 16:32:05 | dansmith | so, | |
| 16:32:10 | dansmith | we're not sure how to use it | |
| 16:32:17 | dansmith | and there are some concerns about how to use it | |
| 16:32:28 | dansmith | so we should merge it, figure it out later and then document? :) | |
| 16:32:48 | stephenfin | that's not very fair | |
| 16:32:52 | mriedem | i've started https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-train-release-todo | |
| 16:32:57 | stephenfin | I don't know how to use BW-aware scheduling | |
| 16:33:05 | dansmith | stephenfin: I think you know how to use it, which is why I said we :) | |
| 16:33:07 | mriedem | it's documented | |
| 16:33:14 | stephenfin | I'm not blocking that because I don't personally understand it | |
| 16:33:21 | mriedem | the bw stuff was documented in stein | |
| 16:33:50 | stephenfin | So's this. There's a not insignificant spec for the thing | |
| 16:34:04 | stephenfin | and I don't think me not documenting things is a concern | |
| 16:34:21 | sean-k-mooney | when i get the jobs running ill review the api checks | |
| 16:34:49 | dansmith | stephenfin: sean-k-mooney is one of the people you included in the "are testing it manually" crew, so I think being a little concerned is not unreasonable | |
| 16:37:53 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [DNM] cpu pinning testing https://review.opendev.org/681807 | |
| 16:38:19 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: is that more to your likeing | |
| 16:38:46 | stephenfin | perfect | |
| 16:38:53 | sean-k-mooney | i think the second flavor should result in no cpus pinning and an api error personally but that should work as you suggest | |
| 16:43:15 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [DNM] test with dedicated cpus only https://review.opendev.org/681827 | |
| 16:45:31 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: I'll try not to rathole on it, but what do you think requesting 'resources:PCPU=N' should imply, out of curiosity? | |
| 16:46:09 | stephenfin | It sounds like your objections to that would apply equally to 'resources:VCPU=N' | |
| 16:46:31 | sean-k-mooney | it should be an error if hw:cpu_policy is not set to dedicated and if it is set to dedicated it shoudl be compared to the flavor.vcpu | |
| 16:47:05 | sean-k-mooney | i dont think operators shoudl use either | |
| 16:47:09 | stephenfin | but I was told we wanted to get away from those request specs to the more generic 'resources' syntax | |
| 16:47:20 | sean-k-mooney | by who | |
| 16:47:35 | stephenfin | jaypipes, efried, dansmith (above) | |
| 16:47:36 | sean-k-mooney | because i rememebr talking about this with alex_xu and efried_afk | |
| 16:48:30 | sean-k-mooney | i had tought that i convinced both efried_afk and alex_xu that we shoudl prefer the abstract form | |
| 16:48:41 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. hw:cpu_policy | |
| 16:49:01 | stephenfin | prefer, yes, but not limit to | |
| 16:49:03 | sean-k-mooney | i have not spoken to dansmith or jaypipes about it | |
| 16:49:11 | stephenfin | hw:cpu_policy is syntactic sugar | |
| 16:49:26 | sean-k-mooney | i dont think it should be jsut syntatic sugar | |
| 16:49:31 | mriedem | efried_afk: in case you didn't see i've created https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-train-release-todo and added it to the meeting agenda | |
| 16:49:48 | sean-k-mooney | i was pretty sure we agree in the reve to explcitly not support resouce:PCPUs | |
| 16:50:21 | sean-k-mooney | this came up in the pmem seriese too | |
| 16:51:00 | sean-k-mooney | we are not infering pmem usage form pmem resocues:... extra specs | |
| 16:53:26 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add user_id and project_id column to Migration https://review.opendev.org/673990 | |
| 16:53:27 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Set user_id/project_id from context when creating a Migration https://review.opendev.org/679413 | |
| 16:53:28 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Filter migrations by user_id/project_id https://review.opendev.org/674243 | |
| 16:58:05 | sean-k-mooney | anyway i have more or less said my pieice but the final point i want to make is that if you use resouces:* you will either have to do a resize to a flaovr without if if that resouce moves in placmenet before upgrading or we will have to do an online data migration of all instance embeded flavor or the vm will not be able to cold/live migrate after an upgrade from on version of nova to another | |
| 16:58:41 | sean-k-mooney | well or a resize to the new flavor with the updated extra specs | |
| 16:58:51 | sean-k-mooney | reflectign the toplogy change | |
| 16:59:11 | stephenfin | aye, that'll be the same for vGPU too, unfortunately | |
| 16:59:19 | stephenfin | I'd rather like to provide a flavor migration tool in the future | |
| 16:59:36 | stephenfin | Migrate all flavors included embedded ones, as a way of deprecating old extra specs | |
| 16:59:41 | stephenfin | but I haven't really thought it throuhg | |
| 16:59:44 | sean-k-mooney | we could but its still not a good thing to encurage people to use | |
| 16:59:55 | mriedem | melwitt: i'm +2 on those bottom 2 changes now | |
| 16:59:56 | stephenfin | We'll do it in U, eh :) | |
| 17:00:05 | mriedem | if the api change doesn't make train at least the data will start flowing | |
| 17:00:09 | sean-k-mooney | i hope not | |
| 17:00:21 | sean-k-mooney | i dont think we should be deprecating those extrapecs | |
| 17:00:38 | mriedem | stephenfin: heh https://review.opendev.org/#/c/637217/ | |
| 17:01:04 | mriedem | "This code can be removed in Queens" | |
| 17:01:13 | melwitt | mriedem: ack thanks | |
| 17:02:03 | sean-k-mooney | anyway that not an somthing we are doing today | |
| 17:02:07 | stephenfin | \o/ | |
| 17:03:02 | stephenfin | I have the nova-network series ready to go once U opens up | |
| 17:05:35 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: what you crurrtly hav is inline with the spec https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/train/approved/cpu-resources.html#example-flavor-configurations so i guess that is what we are stuck with. | |
| 17:06:18 | stephenfin | yeah, I haven't pulled the rug out from anyone here | |
| 17:06:27 | stephenfin | jaypipes wanted the resources-style syntax | |
| 17:06:35 | stephenfin | you wanted the hw:cpu_policy-style | |
| 17:07:02 | sean-k-mooney | yes we have both i would have hoped we could use both together if they dont conflict | |
| 17:08:07 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [DNM] legacy vcpu_pin_set pinning with shared emulator threads https://review.opendev.org/681840 | |