| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-01-16 | |||
| 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. | |
| 16:42:42 | sean-k-mooney | that is annoying | |
| 16:42:54 | efried | sean-k-mooney: set($iterable) | |
| 16:43:03 | sean-k-mooney | ya | |
| 16:43:16 | dansmith | stephenfin: same | |
| 16:43:16 | efried | so {...} if that's a set or a dict would work to get you a set of the keys; (...) for a tuple, [...] for a list etc. | |
| 16:43:31 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: becasue paython is annoying enough to parse as it is | |
| 16:43:51 | efried | I don't really get why that would be better; but I'm going to guess they chose {} because, as I said, a set is a dict without values. | |
| 16:43:59 | sean-k-mooney | <> i think is technically not equal in python 2 | |
| 16:44:07 | dansmith | a set is not a dict with no values :) | |
| 16:44:16 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: indeed, it is | |
| 16:44:29 | stephenfin | I've seen that once in my life, I think | |
| 16:44:31 | stephenfin | (docutils) | |
| 16:44:41 | efried | dansmith: totally is. O(1) hashing, just no pointers out of the buckets. | |
| 16:44:51 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: as hateful as they are, I can imagine them doing that in py3 to break compatibility for fun and profit.. I guess dict literals just got added too early :) | |
| 16:44:52 | sean-k-mooney | although i think its also the same as != and is checking identiy not equality but i might be wrong on that | |
| 16:45:07 | dansmith | efried: totally is not :) | |
| 16:45:38 | dansmith | it may be the same implementation under the covers, but that does not make the statement true :) | |
| 16:47:58 | efried | nova-live-migration seems to be ill. Anyone available to dig in? | |
| 16:53:40 | dansmith | I would think artom would be a good person to maybe start taking on some responsibility for that stuff given his numa LM work | |
| 16:54:05 | dansmith | building some context for the future and what not | |
| 16:54:54 | sean-k-mooney | i got landed with some downstream stuff but in theory i am ment to be helping porting those jobs to be non legacy too | |
| 16:55:27 | sean-k-mooney | efried: is it blocking ci or just starting to fail more then we would like | |
| 16:55:56 | efried | sean-k-mooney: It has tanked many patches in CI in the last 18h or so. | |
| 16:56:05 | efried | doesn't seem to be 100%, but it's close. | |