| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-01-16 | |||
| 15:18:10 | belmoreira | sean-k-mooney for now I can't reproduce it with 7.7 | |
| 15:18:29 | sean-k-mooney | ok cool then that likely already has the backport | |
| 15:18:41 | sean-k-mooney | although this is hardware specific | |
| 15:18:54 | sean-k-mooney | so if its a differen model fo server then you migh not see it | |
| 15:19:21 | belmoreira | sean-k-mooney yes, took me some time to isolate this | |
| 15:20:08 | sean-k-mooney | ya it took us a day or two to figure this out downstream too when it was first reported to us | |
| 15:20:18 | sean-k-mooney | its a very rare edgecase | |
| 15:20:28 | sean-k-mooney | normlaly you will have dma regions per socket | |
| 15:21:03 | sean-k-mooney | or numa node | |
| 15:21:14 | belmoreira | I think that the workaround config will be useful for everyone that is running NUMA aware VMs. Then needs to be backported to older releases | |
| 15:21:29 | sean-k-mooney | so you need a server that does not + requst a numa toploy + have a kernel with the kvm bug | |
| 15:22:08 | sean-k-mooney | well no it will be useful for the minority that have ^ | |
| 15:22:38 | sean-k-mooney | but i would be ok with proceeding on that basis | |
| 15:22:43 | belmoreira | sean-k-mooney ok, true :) | |
| 15:24:27 | belmoreira | but also shows that the nova community is aware of the issue and has a work around | |
| 15:24:32 | belmoreira | sean-k-mooney thanks | |
| 15:25:18 | kashyap | belmoreira: We're very much aware, FWIW, see this response on 'openstack-discuss' list: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-September/009770.html | |
| 15:26:08 | belmoreira | sean-k-mooney but to clarify, "preferred" would break the future placement tracking and this should be disable as soon the new fixed kernel is loaded | |
| 15:26:37 | sean-k-mooney | that placement tracking proably wont be a thing until V | |
| 15:26:50 | sean-k-mooney | i could mess up our tracking in the resouce tracker today | |
| 15:27:18 | sean-k-mooney | but if you have the choice between not being able to use an entire socket | |
| 15:27:35 | sean-k-mooney | or slightly reduced performace im guess your ok with the slight perfromace hit | |
| 15:27:48 | sean-k-mooney | and slightly in accurate tracking | |
| 15:28:49 | sean-k-mooney | belmoreira: my conser is only for instace with a numa toplogy that dont use hugepages | |
| 15:29:26 | belmoreira | got it | |
| 15:29:47 | sean-k-mooney | hugepage guess will be tracked properly in either case | |
| 15:30:14 | belmoreira | thanks a lot for this discussion and proposal | |
| 15:32:22 | Sundar | sean-k-mooney: Please make sure to pull in https://review.opendev.org/698846 and https://review.opendev.org/700261 | |
| 15:32:45 | Sundar | They are called out as dependencies in the create/bind patch | |
| 15:33:14 | Sundar | i.e. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/631244/ | |
| 15:33:38 | sean-k-mooney | i cant have devstack pull in both if they are not in the same patch change | |
| 15:33:42 | sean-k-mooney | *chain | |
| 15:33:53 | sean-k-mooney | so ill have to create a local branch and merge them in | |
| 15:34:10 | sean-k-mooney | i have https://review.opendev.org/#/c/698846/ but not https://review.opendev.org/#/c/700261/ | |
| 15:34:13 | kashyap | belmoreira: stephenfin: efried: The kernel issue (https://review.opendev.org/#/c/684375/) has been latent. (Just confirmed w/ a KVM mainatiner.) | |
| 15:34:19 | Sundar | Both are listed as dependencies in the same Nova patch | |
| 15:34:42 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: (Responded on the change.) Thanks! | |
| 15:34:46 | sean-k-mooney | yes but devstack can only clone one it does not have the zuul logic to create a merge commti from both | |
| 15:35:00 | sean-k-mooney | but i can do it manually and restart the services | |
| 15:35:19 | stephenfin | kashyap: I wonder why there wasn't a sudden spike so? Surely this would have been affecting belmoreira and co. for years now if it's been there forever | |
| 15:35:22 | sean-k-mooney | Sundar: in general depends-on should not be used within the same repo | |
| 15:35:46 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add support for stable device rescue https://review.opendev.org/700812 | |
| 15:35:46 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: virt: Provide block_device_info during rescue https://review.opendev.org/700811 | |
| 15:35:47 | kashyap | stephenfin: Yeah, I don't have a solid answer to that yet :-( | |
| 15:35:47 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: docs: Add stable device rescue docs https://review.opendev.org/700837 | |
| 15:35:50 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/698846/ should be rebased on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/700261/ | |
| 15:36:14 | kashyap | stephenfin: Let me see the original kernel report I quoted in the commit, maybe there's something in there | |
| 15:36:39 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: i have never seen hardware that actully does not have a dma regoin per numa node | |
| 15:37:10 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: DNM test stable rescue tempest/devstack changes https://review.opendev.org/700815 | |
| 15:37:18 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: and i mean ever in the 7+ years i have been working on this stuff | |
| 15:37:50 | sean-k-mooney | so i am not surprised people have not hit this before | |
| 15:38:10 | stephenfin | efried: I think I'm going to have to get you to weigh in on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/696745/, because I _think_ I've addressed the concerns but everyone else is still avoiding it :) | |
| 15:38:38 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Ah, interesting | |
| 15:38:59 | stephenfin | It's almost all refactor noise _except_ the rename of 'nova.network.neutronv2.api' to just 'nova.network.neutron', and the subsequent removal of the 'nova.network.api' shim | |
| 15:39:35 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: I don't have the data about the hardware assmuption here (which hosts might not have the DMA32 region): https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/24/152 | |
| 15:40:26 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: i also suspect that htis was not alway the behavior or kvm by the way | |
| 15:41:15 | sean-k-mooney | i proably had been that way for a long time but i susspect it was altered at somepoint | |
| 15:41:20 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: FWIW, a bit ago I checked w/ Paolo (one of the upstream KVM devs); he confirmed it's "latent" | |
| 15:41:23 | kashyap | Probably | |
| 15:42:49 | sean-k-mooney | maybe i dont knwo why but if feel like if you grabed ubuntu 12.04 or centos 5.4 it likely wont happen | |
| 15:42:55 | belmoreira | stephenfin our batch VMs (running in dedicated compute nodes with NUMA/huge pages aware) are long lived VM | |
| 15:43:32 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: i just get the feelign like there was a refactor of this at some point but i dont recall why i have that feeling | |
| 15:43:36 | belmoreira | true that we are seeing this issue for awhile. Until now our solution has been to reboot the affected node. | |
| 16:00:12 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova stable/train: Avoid spurious error logging in _get_compute_nodes_in_db https://review.opendev.org/702902 | |
| 16:06:12 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Error out interrupted builds https://review.opendev.org/687918 | |
| 16:06:26 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Fix false ERROR message at compute restart https://review.opendev.org/699496 | |
| 16:10:14 | dansmith | efried: do you have any opinions on the newer literal set syntax (i.e {1, 2}) ? | |
| 16:10:30 | dansmith | IMHO, it's one of the worst things ever, because it's super confusing and looks like a dict | |
| 16:10:59 | dansmith | just wondering if anyone else would be interested in a developer convention in nova of not adding code with that syntax to our tree | |
| 16:11:48 | gibi | dansmith: I have no problem with the literal set sytnax for me the absense of ':' is enough to notice that it is a set | |
| 16:12:06 | dansmith | it's super easy to not notice that there's no : though | |
| 16:12:17 | gibi | I guess we are different | |
| 16:12:20 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova stable/train: Ensure source service is up before resizing/migrating https://review.opendev.org/701757 | |
| 16:12:40 | dansmith | gibi: that's fine, I asked because I was wondering if I'm the only one | |
| 16:18:53 | artom | dansmith, as per your request, I'm not letting you forget https://review.opendev.org/#/c/687404/8 | |
| 16:20:30 | gibi | dansmith: I think for me it is mostly about the fact that I used to it. I guess I would be pretty against assignment expression because that would be something I never used before in python | |
| 16:21:09 | dansmith | artom: okay I'm in the middle of one of the cyborg patches, which is making me angry because apparently validating that our new methods are called like we expect them to is far too high a bar | |
| 16:21:39 | artom | dansmith, to adjust nagging frequency, press 1 now ;) | |
| 16:22:11 | dansmith | gibi: I think it's confusing that foo={} is a dict but foo={1} is a set, and easy to confuse foo={1:2} with foo={1,2}, and set comprehensions look a lot like dict comprehensions | |
| 16:22:24 | dansmith | gibi: obviously you *can* tell the difference, it's just very easy to miss, IMHO | |
| 16:25:36 | gibi | I accept your view | |
| 16:25:41 | dansmith | hah | |
| 16:26:03 | efried | dansmith: I personally have no problem with {1, 2} set syntax. A set is a dict with only keys. And I don't have trouble distinguishing between commas and colons. | |
| 16:26:17 | dansmith | aight, well, that settles it then | |
| 16:26:26 | artom | " A set is a dict with only keys" Umm... | |
| 16:26:29 | efried | dansmith: but jaypipes expressed a distaste for it (for the same reasons) so I avoided it... until he was gone. | |
| 16:26:46 | dansmith | oh did he? damn, should have gotten my rule landed then | |
| 16:28:29 | efried | a) I think set((1, 2)) is overly verbose and unnecessary, b) my IDE warns that I should use a set literal, c) I believe set((1, 2)) is also less efficient because it first creates a tuple, then calls a method to turn it into a set. | |
| 16:29:34 | dansmith | yeah, I don't like how verbose set() has to be, and yes there's some overhead but I think it's trivial in this case | |
| 16:29:34 | efried | obv b) I could ignore / turn off, and I'm sure c) is negligible in 99.99% of cases. But given aforementioned not-problem with the literal syntax, it's enough for me. | |
| 16:30:05 | dansmith | ack | |
| 16:36:57 | efried | Is that what you've done? | |
| 16:36:57 | efried | stephenfin: before I dig into that: I'm of the opinion that a) we should make it look like the other service API shims. nova/$service_type/$project_name.py; b) I don't see a need for a generic abstract API layer. | |
| 16:41:17 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: for what its worth i dislike {} as that allways meen a dict so i dont like useing it to initalise a default. i alway use set() if i want a set in that case | |
| 16:41:36 | sean-k-mooney | well if its empty that is | |
| 16:41:57 | dansmith | well, confirmation that I'm not crazy, at least | |
| 16:42:00 | efried | If set(1, 2) were allowed I would be less grouchy about it. | |
| 16:42:09 | dansmith | or.. "at least as crazy as sean-k-mooney" I guess :P | |
| 16:42:38 | sean-k-mooney | efried you have to do set({...}) right | |
| 16:42:41 | efried | but having multiple meanings for the same operator/punctuation doesn't bother me as long as it's clear from the context, which IMO it is in this case, because colons. | |