Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2023-02-10
11:41:13 bauzas but yeah that makes sense from an OS perspective
11:41:21 bauzas you always rely on that core to be available
11:41:50 bauzas that's the most portable assumption
11:42:04 sean-k-mooney ya it generally need one core that can always be used to handel interupts and you know turn on the others
11:43:14 sean-k-mooney bauzas: that is why there is no online file in /sys/bus/cpu/devices/cpu0/
11:43:24 sean-k-mooney but there is in all the rest
11:44:07 bauzas ooooooooh
11:44:39 bauzas but you can write an online file and set 0 into it for core #0, right ?
11:45:13 bauzas that's quite a destructive CPU equivalent of disk's rm -rf /
11:45:25 bauzas except it's stateless
11:49:40 sean-k-mooney it will be ignored
11:49:55 sean-k-mooney you can create that file but it wont do anything as far as i am aware
11:50:52 sean-k-mooney by the way https://github.com/SeanMooney/arbiterd/blob/master/src/arbiterd/common/cpu.py#L58-L62
11:51:02 sean-k-mooney is how i got the aviable cpus
11:52:02 sean-k-mooney gibi: bauzas actully also for context
11:52:04 sean-k-mooney https://github.com/SeanMooney/arbiterd/blob/master/src/arbiterd/common/cpu.py#L106-L107
11:52:14 sean-k-mooney that default 1 was because of this
11:52:19 bauzas gtk
11:52:24 sean-k-mooney https://github.com/SeanMooney/arbiterd/blob/master/src/arbiterd/common/cpu.py#L106-L114
11:52:35 sean-k-mooney thats also why i did the get_online check in set online
11:52:46 sean-k-mooney to not do the write
11:52:59 sean-k-mooney i proably should have left a code comment for that...
11:53:26 sean-k-mooney ye removed that optimisation but that was actully the real reason i did that in the poc. it was not an optimisation
11:53:37 sean-k-mooney it was to workaround the cpu0 weridness
11:54:28 sean-k-mooney although to be fair i didnt fix that on the set offline path
11:54:30 sean-k-mooney so meh
12:04:01 opendevreview Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: let CPUs be power managed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/821228
12:04:02 opendevreview Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Enable cpus when an instance is spawning https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/868237
12:04:06 bauzas gibi: sean-k-mooney: ^
12:04:23 bauzas and after that, will take my pen for reviewing series
13:28:21 gibi bauzas: on it
13:28:29 bauzas ack
13:32:16 opendevreview Andre Aranha proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: [stable-only] Test setting the nova job to centos-9-stream https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860087
13:36:21 gibi bauzas: I'm +2 +A on the power management series
13:37:32 bauzas gibi: thanks
13:38:11 gibi it was a self contained patch series with well splitted commits. so it was a plesure to review
13:38:49 bauzas I'll add in the etherpad the promised docs patch
13:41:35 gibi I will check the evac fup now
13:54:44 gibi bauzas: I'm not sure https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:privsep-usage-review is at a landeable state
13:55:13 gibi I think the two patches there are only pre-reqs for the real move but I can be mistaken
13:55:44 bauzas I need to open those links
13:55:54 bauzas ideally, I'd like a migration plan
13:56:07 bauzas something we could merge on a step way
13:56:45 bauzas but yeah, I assume this blueprint would be marked Complete once we pull all the callers out of the privsep.py modules
13:57:42 sean-k-mooney they can be merged increentally but i dont think there is enough done in those to see a benifit in A
13:57:51 sean-k-mooney i would proably wait till early next cycle
13:58:19 sean-k-mooney that said i have not really reviewed it so there might be more there then i think
13:58:25 sean-k-mooney i would not rush it however
13:58:30 bauzas yeah maybe
13:58:37 bauzas shit. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/873300 got again trampled
13:58:46 bauzas our gate is still onhold
14:02:35 gibi bauzas: there a global requirement bump https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/872065 that is RED due to nova. And it blocks bumping os-traits to 2.10.0 in global requirements which in turn blocks the manila series and the https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:bp%252Flibvirt-maxphysaddr-support impl
14:03:36 bauzas damn shit.
14:03:47 bauzas we're constructing a pile of cards
14:04:14 gibi yeah
14:04:21 bauzas wait
14:04:23 bauzas https://effe4ed80a91c92fc386-ef4309a852fb3e3584cdcb1adbb4ea34.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/872065/4/check/cross-nova-py310/da20743/testr_results.html
14:04:49 bauzas 2023-02-07 15:57:42,351 ERROR [nova.privsep.utils] Error on '.' while checking direct I/O: ''
14:04:59 bauzas I have no idea about what would cause this
14:05:07 gibi I did not looked into that failure
14:05:31 bauzas after 10 years, I still discover new areas in Nov
14:07:01 bauzas gibi: ouch, see this ? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/872065/4/upper-constraints.txt#207
14:08:00 gibi I counted > 20 major bumps in that patch but I did not noticed that libvirt-python is one of them
14:08:04 gibi so shit++
14:08:21 gibi I don't like that big bump patch
14:08:26 gibi it moves to many things at once
14:08:29 gibi too close to RC1
14:09:14 kashyap gibi: It's not merged yet, right
14:09:25 kashyap gibi: Yeah, I just see the 'libvirt-python' bump sneaked in there
14:09:34 gibi kashyap: right, it is failed on CI
14:09:58 gibi kashyap: but even if it clears CI I smell trouble
14:10:09 kashyap Yeah, I'm adding a quick review comment
14:11:52 bauzas I made a clear statement already
14:12:28 bauzas gibi: we shouldn't wait for this massive reqs update for os-traits
14:12:34 kashyap bauzas: Aaah, I missed your comment
14:12:47 gibi bauzas: we can try to propose a separate bump that only moves os-traits
14:12:50 bauzas gibi: want me to propose some u-c update for os-traits ?
14:12:53 kashyap Ah, we wrote the comment at the same moment (3:11 PM)
14:13:01 gibi bauzas: yeah, go ahead, I can +1 it
14:13:05 bauzas https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/872065/4/upper-constraints.txt#361
14:13:17 bauzas gibi: fwiw, os-traits isn't upgraded in this patch
14:13:35 gibi bauzas: yeah that patch wasn't regenerated since os-traits 2.10 landed
14:13:50 bauzas on it then
14:13:50 gibi I think it will be regenerated eventually but we don't need to wait for it
14:13:54 gibi thanks
14:14:16 gibi once we have 2.10 in global reqs we need a bump in placement too as we want to release placement with the latest os-traits
14:15:27 bauzas why isn't the bot proposing a new release ? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/854821
14:16:58 gibi bauzas: maybe because it is waiting for the other bump to land?
14:17:00 gibi I'm not sure
14:17:02 gibi elodilles: ^^
14:19:40 gibi bauzas: the spice image compression patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/828675 is nicely written and easy to review. I
14:19:43 gibi I
14:19:45 gibi I'm +2 on it
14:19:45 gibi I
14:19:55 gibi (too much coffee...)
14:20:11 bauzas gibi: ok, then, I'll take a look on it
14:20:22 gibi I think it is an easy win :)
14:20:29 bauzas I like easy wins
14:20:55 bauzas our antelope release will have bad numbers so anything that helps to improve our numbers is good :)
14:22:52 gibi and I jumped the gun on the manila series regarding the os-traits release. The manial series only needs os-traits 2.8.0 so that is OK. So only the scaphandre and the max_phy_bits series are blocked on os-traits 2.10.0

Earlier   Later