Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2021-03-10
22:01:13 sean-k-mooney for socket policy you dont allow device with no numa node correct
22:01:34 sean-k-mooney so that should be an or not an and
22:06:28 artom sean-k-mooney, well, I did a thing, and it made all tests pass.
22:06:36 artom It's brute force and dumb, but "easy" to understand
22:06:38 artom Shall I push?
22:06:40 sean-k-mooney artom: so i can "fix" this in my patch by adding pool_keys.pop('socket', None) to _find_pool
22:07:01 artom It'll kick my last patch out of the gate, and we'll have to get +2s and +As again tomorrow
22:07:48 sean-k-mooney i dont know its technically broken but you have a followup or i can fix it in my patch
22:08:00 sean-k-mooney we proably shoudl kick it out of the gate as much as i hate that
22:08:10 artom Yeah, it's the correct thing to do
22:08:21 artom As it, it's broken with any parent-having device
22:08:35 sean-k-mooney ya
22:09:09 openstackgerrit Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: pci: implement the 'socket' NUMA affinity policy https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/772779
22:09:10 openstackgerrit Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Support per port numa policies with SR-IOV https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/773792
22:09:17 sean-k-mooney so the minimal fix is just add one line pool_keys.pop('socket', None) to _find_pool
22:10:32 sean-k-mooney ah i see what you did
22:11:05 sean-k-mooney are you still ok with rewriting it again in the followup
22:11:23 sean-k-mooney that should work as is though
22:11:26 sean-k-mooney ill test it now
22:12:05 artom sean-k-mooney, yeah, we can improve in a follow up
22:12:15 artom For now, do the simple stupid thing that's easy to understand and review, and works ;)
22:15:33 sean-k-mooney ok i have the unit and funct test running for those locally now. im going to go get somethign to eat and when i get back ill test boot real vms and ill comment on the review
22:16:07 sean-k-mooney then ill rebase the vdpa change on top of both patches and test those
22:16:16 artom That's... optimistic ;)
22:16:36 artom Though I suppose if that was the only outstanding issue with the port NUMA policies, might as well aim for the moon ;)
22:17:27 sean-k-mooney i have some nits form stephen it looks like i mised but ya i think its the only issue
22:18:09 sean-k-mooney these https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/773792/11#message-8d43910738d79b4f530fd6b4176074ad6f53c543
22:20:56 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/os-resource-classes master: Fix hacking min version to 3.0.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-resource-classes/+/727557
22:58:54 dansmith melwitt: easy stats: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779815
22:59:27 dansmith converting the single-line glance policy I write from old json to new yaml, so I can write to it easier from a child job to change other stuff
23:01:11 melwitt +2
23:01:52 dansmith m'thanks
23:38:31 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: Support per port numa policies with SR-IOV https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/773792
#openstack-nova - 2021-03-11
04:31:26 openstackgerrit melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Dynamically archive FK related records in archive_deleted_rows https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/773834
05:37:12 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: libvirt: Deprecate disable_native_luksv1 and rbd_volume_local_attach https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/778004
05:54:16 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Follow up for QoS interface attach https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/777112
06:42:58 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: setup.cfg: Resolve warning https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779449
06:57:40 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Make nova-ceph-multistore use policy.yaml https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779815
07:46:27 openstackgerrit Yongli He proposed openstack/nova master: smartnic support - reject server move and suspend https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779913
07:50:03 openstackgerrit Yongli He proposed openstack/nova master: smartnic support - reject server move and suspend https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779913
07:52:49 openstackgerrit Yongli He proposed openstack/nova master: smartnic support - reject server move and suspend https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779913
08:05:31 yonglihe sean-k-mooney: alex_xu: could you please remove that -1 (base on discuss with alex): https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/771363
08:20:21 gibi yonglihe: hi, sorry I was not able to get back to the smartnic patches yesterday
08:26:05 yonglihe gibi: got, busy day.
08:26:48 gibi yonglihe: I see -1s on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/771363/12 does the problem resolved?
08:27:18 yonglihe I post another patch to fix alex coments.
08:27:38 yonglihe and there are one unit test case will posted soon.
08:28:29 gibi OK
08:45:51 openstackgerrit Yongli He proposed openstack/nova master: smartnic support - new vnic type https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/771363
08:45:52 openstackgerrit Yongli He proposed openstack/nova master: smartnic support https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/758944
08:45:53 openstackgerrit Yongli He proposed openstack/nova master: smartnic support - reject server move and suspend https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779913
08:48:34 yonglihe gibi alex_xu, sean-k-mooney, xinranwang: test cases added.
08:51:24 yonglihe gibi: all the problem resolved, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/771363/13
08:51:34 gibi reading it ...
09:42:17 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: docs: Add note about rescuing bfv instances with the 2.87 microversion https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779479
09:43:24 lyarwood whops
09:47:04 lyarwood Type 'yes' to confirm, other to cancel: yes
09:47:05 lyarwood Aborting.
09:47:10 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: docs: Add note about rescuing bfv instances with the 2.87 microversion https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779479
09:47:16 lyarwood >.< git-review WHY DO YOU HATE ME?!
09:48:42 bauzas folks, I'll resume reviewing the uefi secure boot series starting with https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779302/2
09:48:50 bauzas stephenfin: lyarwood: gibi: ^
09:48:55 stephenfin ta
09:49:10 gibi ack
09:50:01 stephenfin lyarwood: You can probably bump your +1 to +2 on this now? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779303/
09:50:09 stephenfin It failed, but not for related reasons
09:51:10 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: objects: Add 'VDPA' to 'PciDeviceType' https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/777481
09:51:11 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add vDPA nodedev parsing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/770533
09:51:11 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Move PCI host device parsing to 'host' https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779851
09:51:12 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add guest generation for vDPA https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/770532
09:51:13 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: pci: Add vDPA vnic to PCI request mapping and filtering https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/778350
09:51:14 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: add hw:mlock extra spec https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/778347
09:51:27 lyarwood stephenfin: ack yeah sorry will do
09:52:35 stephenfin kashyap: Can you revisit https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/776681/6/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#5917 and see if you're happy with my response RE: the 'optional' secure boot policy?
09:52:56 kashyap stephenfin: Morning, will do
09:55:55 kashyap stephenfin: Yeah, that response is fair enough. We expect people to read the docs. We can't put a guard against every potential foot-gun
10:00:41 stephenfin yup, exactly
10:00:51 kashyap stephenfin: Also, I like the clean test in test_driver.py; thakns!
10:00:52 stephenfin I plan to resolve the nvram issue as a bug after feature freeze
10:01:02 kashyap stephenfin: Right; that's fine
10:01:05 stephenfin the series is already too big to bring that in, IMO
10:01:22 kashyap Agree
10:02:18 kashyap And it's a more time-taking one anyway; we shouldn't block on it for now.
10:05:23 kashyap Don't know where you are at this moment :-)
10:16:31 bauzas stephenfin: slight -1 for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/779302
10:16:48 bauzas I need to get my daughters from the school but please reply
10:16:53 bauzas and then I'll look later
10:57:58 artom stephenfin, gibi, with sean-k-mooney's port NUMA affinity patch on top of my socket stuff, we found an issue with PCI devices that have parents
10:58:32 lyarwood bauzas: stephenfin just stepped out but I replied in that change, I'm not sure what you're suggesting tbh.
10:58:50 artom Because I was setting 'socket' *on* the pool, it b0rked comparison for parent PFs. I've had to fix and push again: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/772779
11:00:40 sean-k-mooney the fix artom did was to get teh list of numa node related to the sockets the guest is on and then require the pool be in one of those numa nodes
11:01:15 artom Yep - that way, nothing is being set on the pool, no side effect surprises
11:01:56 artom It's not a radical departure from what was there before :)
11:05:06 sean-k-mooney hehe its litrally https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/772779/17..18/nova/pci/stats.py
11:05:26 sean-k-mooney so ya +9-14 lines
11:07:48 lyarwood gibi: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/735947 - btw I -1'd this earlier, more for my own education and understanding as the code LGTM but the commit wasn't clear on the reasoning for this.
11:09:40 gibi artom: ack, looks good to me
11:10:39 gibi lyarwood: I have to get back to that
11:12:23 artom gibi, mcuh thanks!
11:12:24 sean-k-mooney off the top of my head i dont rememebr all the detail but the highlevle reasoning is that hyperthreading affect the entire host ans sicne cpu are part of the unname greoup these should also be. it would be invalid today to have 2 named groups one that requested HT on and the other HT off for the same host

Earlier   Later