| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-01-28 | |||
| 14:23:41 | sean-k-mooney | its not just group_policy although that is a major issue i dont think the group syntax shoudl be used in the flavor at all | |
| 14:24:18 | sean-k-mooney | using it between nova and placment im more ok with | |
| 14:24:19 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: in the spec, I say that we should hide the placement queries | |
| 14:24:32 | bauzas | that's the consensus said so far at least | |
| 14:26:54 | sean-k-mooney | yes that is a saving grace of the current proposal in that it is advocatign for doing translation form the existing extra specs | |
| 14:27:16 | sean-k-mooney | that said its in conflict with the mix pinned and unpind cpus in one instnace work | |
| 14:55:30 | efried | stephenfin: whoops, we crossed in the mail, let me go back and respond to your comments before you respin please... | |
| 15:09:23 | efried | stephenfin: done | |
| 15:09:36 | efried | I don't think anything changed :) | |
| 16:14:19 | Sundar | Hello dansmith | |
| 16:15:14 | dansmith | Sundar: hi, I'm on a call right now | |
| 17:49:44 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: api: Add support for extra spec validation https://review.opendev.org/704643 | |
| 17:49:49 | stephenfin | efried: ^ | |
| 17:50:23 | efried | ack. You removing the prototype stuff from the spec? | |
| 17:50:32 | stephenfin | efried: Assuming you're not against the general idea I have in that spec, it might be worth skimming that patch to see if it addresses your concerns (note the TODOs to do microversion stuff) | |
| 17:50:53 | stephenfin | and if it looks good, I'll remove the prototype stuff and make it more handwavey :) | |
| 17:51:11 | stephenfin | well, I'll remove that anyway but the handwavey stuff will reflect what I'm going to actually do | |
| 17:51:19 | efried | cool | |
| 20:33:48 | openstackgerrit | Vladyslav Drok proposed openstack/nova master: Minor improvements to cell commands https://review.opendev.org/698053 | |
| 21:30:25 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Use COMPUTE_SAME_HOST_COLD_MIGRATE trait during migrate https://review.opendev.org/695220 | |
| 22:34:45 | efried | IMO that's going to inform whether we set things up for strict validation out of the gate. | |
| 22:34:45 | efried | I think we're in agreement on most of the other pieces, but I'd like to close on the discussion of whether there will be something beyond microversion to enable/disable the validation; and if so, whether that thing can be made granular to the point of selecting whether to reject unknown keys. | |
| 22:34:45 | efried | stephenfin: The prototype code looks fine to me philosophically (I didn't leave any comments yet, though there are several things I noticed) but it really only answers one of the more minor issues (the non-splitting-out of namespace vs extra spec validators). | |
| #openstack-nova - 2020-01-29 | |||
| 03:52:44 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Handle cell failures in get_compute_nodes_by_host_or_node https://review.opendev.org/700186 | |
| 03:52:52 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: doc: define boot from volume in the glossary https://review.opendev.org/699009 | |
| 04:57:55 | openstackgerrit | Huachang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] More tests for validating CPU policy by 'resources:PCPU' and 'resources:VCPU' https://review.opendev.org/696007 | |
| 04:57:56 | openstackgerrit | Huachang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Assign instance dedicated CPU set through `cpu_pinning` field https://review.opendev.org/688933 | |
| 04:57:56 | openstackgerrit | Huachang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Refactor the code path of creating instance with a NUMA topology https://review.opendev.org/688932 | |
| 04:57:57 | openstackgerrit | Huachang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] support unbalanced dedicatd CPU distribution on instance NUMA nodes https://review.opendev.org/696008 | |
| 04:57:57 | openstackgerrit | Huachang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Introduce a new instance CPU allocation policy: mixed https://review.opendev.org/688934 | |
| 04:57:58 | openstackgerrit | Huachang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] metadata: export the vCPU IDs that are pinning on the host CPUs https://review.opendev.org/688936 | |
| 04:57:58 | openstackgerrit | Huachang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Create 'mixed' instance from PCPU and VCPU resources https://review.opendev.org/696009 | |
| 09:31:40 | bauzas | good morning Nova | |
| 09:38:43 | stephenfin | o/ | |
| 09:43:16 | gibi | \o | |
| 09:45:45 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Use COMPUTE_SAME_HOST_COLD_MIGRATE trait during migrate https://review.opendev.org/695220 | |
| 09:48:19 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Support unshelve with qos ports https://review.opendev.org/704759 | |
| 10:05:06 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Recalculate 'RequestSpec.numa_topology' on resize https://review.opendev.org/662522 | |
| 10:25:25 | stephenfin | gibi, bauzas: Either of you care to sanity check this and then send it on its way? Just updating to reflect post-merge reality | |
| 10:25:30 | stephenfin | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/666032/ | |
| 10:25:40 | bauzas | stephenfin: sure | |
| 10:25:56 | bauzas | btw. thanks stephenfin and gibi for my multiple GPU types spec reapproval | |
| 10:26:03 | stephenfin | np. Made sense | |
| 10:26:28 | bauzas | I'm more concerned by the NUMA topology in placement spec that's blocked because of good gibi's and sean-k-mooney's finding | |
| 11:02:26 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: im conserned about that spec too and the interaction with mix cpus | |
| 11:03:51 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: can we have a call or something to work on this together | |
| 11:04:54 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: that said im currently working on the backport. i did not feel great yesterday so did not get it finished :( | |
| 11:08:08 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Re-propose the flavor extra spec validation spec https://review.opendev.org/682655 | |
| 11:15:41 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: if you have not already done so i think you shoudl review https://review.opendev.org/#/c/668656/ too by the way | |
| 11:17:15 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: ack, will do later in the afternoon | |
| 11:17:21 | bauzas | and thanks for the reviews | |
| 11:24:12 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: api: Add support for extra spec validation https://review.opendev.org/704643 | |
| 11:29:58 | gibi | stephenfin: looking | |
| 11:38:20 | gibi | stephenfin: +A | |
| 11:39:36 | stephenfin | gibi: ta | |
| 11:43:39 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Re-propose the flavor extra spec validation spec https://review.opendev.org/682655 | |
| 11:49:34 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Additional upgrade clarifications for cpu-resources https://review.opendev.org/666032 | |
| 11:50:19 | stephenfin | gibi: I know it's horrible stuff, but could I ask you to revisit https://review.opendev.org/#/c/662522 this week? There's another patch needed to improve how we rollback in a failure, but that should stand by itself all the same | |
| 11:50:50 | gibi | sure I added to my queue | |
| 11:50:56 | stephenfin | thanks | |
| 12:26:06 | huaqiang | stephenfin: Thanks your review for spec https://review.opendev.org/#/c/668656. I haven't responded to your comments in time because I am still in my vacation of the chinese new year, | |
| 12:27:07 | huaqiang | I want to comfirm that you prefer the PCPU mask approach that we have dropped, right? | |
| 13:04:11 | stephenfin | huaqiang: No problem. There's no rush. Yes, that's what I'm in favour of. I'll try discuss it with dansmith this week so we can have it resolved for when you're back | |
| 13:12:06 | huaqiang | stephenfin: thanks. It's pretty close to the freeze of spec, I planed to work but not work fully these days. | |
| 13:13:14 | huaqiang | I'll keep my eye on the update of gerrit and irc. | |
| 14:37:14 | openstackgerrit | Lenny Verkhovsky proposed openstack/os-vif master: WIP: Testing CI https://review.opendev.org/686937 | |
| 14:55:59 | stephenfin | gibi: Replied at https://review.opendev.org/#/c/682655/3/specs/ussuri/approved/flavor-extra-spec-validators.rst@194. I'll hold off addressing sean-k-mooney's comments until you've taken another look | |
| 14:56:12 | gibi | stephenfin: ack, looking | |
| 14:56:37 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: im reviewing you poc code at the moment | |
| 14:56:43 | sean-k-mooney | almost done | |
| 14:58:26 | efried | stephenfin: just posted another round of comments. Since sean-k-mooney and gibi are here, perhaps we can hash out the granular-control issue realtime. | |
| 14:59:31 | sean-k-mooney | we might not need it but if we do add it rather then a config option i think the new microverions shoudl add a &validate=stric|permissive|off option to the post | |
| 14:59:49 | sean-k-mooney | maybe just strict|off based on stephens last comment | |
| 15:00:00 | gibi | stephenfin: do you think people will hack on a the in-tree validator yamls if it is in the python package dir? | |
| 15:00:57 | stephenfin | I've no idea. I just know this would be the first time we'll have used YAML to define something that's core to nova | |
| 15:01:35 | stephenfin | There's no reason we couldn't define our nova.conf "schema" in YAML but we chose not to. I guess if we can figure out why we did that, we'd solve this too | |
| 15:02:14 | efried | nova.conf is ini style | |
| 15:02:30 | stephenfin | but not the definitions for those config options | |
| 15:02:31 | efried | conceived, if I'm not mistaken, before yaml was sexy. | |
| 15:02:57 | efried | It would be possible to do these validators ini-style and use oslo.conf | |
| 15:03:02 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: so i really hate the idea of only doing this with yaml files but if we do then i think there is no excust to not use the json based metadef format that glance has and share the files as a lib | |
| 15:03:26 | stephenfin | eeew, I'm not writing that much JSON | |
| 15:03:41 | efried | Yeah, definitely don't want the files to be json. yaml exists because json is ugly. | |
| 15:03:51 | stephenfin | also, I think I did look at that and it didn't offer everything we'd need | |
| 15:04:00 | sean-k-mooney | but we are needless reinventing the wheel here | |
| 15:04:08 | gibi | I don't want to start a format war, I just wanted to avoid implementing two pieces of code when one piece would be enough technically | |
| 15:04:20 | stephenfin | But glance's stuff wasn't invented here, Sean. | |
| 15:04:27 | stephenfin | :P | |
| 15:04:29 | sean-k-mooney | the have a format for declaring this. they expose it via an api for heat and horizon to consume to generate use | |
| 15:04:31 | bauzas | honestly, what's the problem with stevedore ? | |
| 15:04:38 | efried | Oh, yeah, IMO ini isn't powerful enough for long-term use, even for nova.conf (as demonstrated by the travesty that is passthrough_whitelist). | |
| 15:04:40 | bauzas | nova was built around it | |
| 15:04:48 | bauzas | plugins FTW | |
| 15:04:55 | sean-k-mooney | we could pull the galnce sutff into a lib and share it | |
| 15:05:01 | efried | bauzas: to me, just unnecessary complexity and an additional thing we don't need. | |
| 15:05:10 | sean-k-mooney | if we go file based only i think that is what we shoudl do | |
| 15:05:25 | bauzas | efried: entrypoints are complex to manage ? | |
| 15:05:44 | bauzas | honestly, we haven't heard about this since nova exists | |
| 15:05:59 | efried | entrypoints plus python code plus packaging, versus putting a yaml file in a directory? Hell yes. | |
| 15:06:01 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: there is one complexity with them form a packaging point of view | |