| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-02-27 | |||
| 10:04:06 | sean-k-mooney | if so then yes use required/isolate in all flavors to ensure to vms form different tenants dont overlap | |
| 10:04:12 | tobias-urdin | so i will set cpu_policy=dedicated cpu_thread_policy=required on flavor and make sure cpu_dedicated_set is set and including sibblings | |
| 10:04:38 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/os-vif master: Update master for stable/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/875097 | |
| 10:04:39 | tobias-urdin | make sure flavors use even amount of cores, so it gets distributed between core and thread (4 = 2 core, 2 thread, 8 = 4 core, 4 thread etc) | |
| 10:04:46 | tobias-urdin | that sounds reasonable? | |
| 10:05:09 | sean-k-mooney | more or less but read the upgrade section fo the cpu tracking in placemnt doc carefully | |
| 10:05:48 | tobias-urdin | we're on xena moving to yoga in a couple of weeks btw if that makes any difference | |
| 10:06:09 | sean-k-mooney | by the way i generally recommend seting hw:cpu_sockets=<the number of numa nodes> and hw:cpu_thread=2 | |
| 10:06:57 | sean-k-mooney | not really just that we planned to delete the old pinning code around wallaby but stephenfin moved team and we just didnt get around to it | |
| 10:07:36 | sean-k-mooney | the upgrade impact is the same regardless of when you actuly do the upgrade form old pining to placment aware pinning | |
| 10:08:33 | sean-k-mooney | with the slight simplifciation that at least you know all your nodes already have support for it in code | |
| 10:14:02 | tobias-urdin | sean-k-mooney: not sure i follow about what is legacy and not | |
| 10:14:56 | tobias-urdin | it should be tracked in placement already but do you we mean we should probably disable the fallback path for pcpu? | |
| 10:15:28 | tobias-urdin | or do you mean you want to get rid of the hw: aliases and use PCPU etc resource directly in flavor properties to affect placement? | |
| 10:21:40 | sean-k-mooney | useing vcpu_pin_set for pinning is deprecated | |
| 10:22:00 | sean-k-mooney | we will likely remove that config option sooner rather then later | |
| 10:22:22 | sean-k-mooney | PCUPs are only tracked in placment as a sperate inventory if you use cpu_dedicated_set | |
| 10:22:39 | tobias-urdin | that makes sense, thanks | |
| 10:22:41 | sean-k-mooney | there will be no changes to the hw: extra specs | |
| 10:22:47 | tobias-urdin | ack | |
| 10:23:45 | sean-k-mooney | once we remvoe the vcpu_pin_set we can remove the old code for the legacy isolate behavior (asinging one ht siblibing to the vm and reserving the other) | |
| 10:24:13 | sean-k-mooney | that will allow use to simplify that code a little | |
| 10:25:33 | sean-k-mooney | right now any time we want to extend pinned cpus in some way we have to desgin arond the placement natiave and pre placement behavior which is a bit of a pain | |
| 10:26:08 | sean-k-mooney | the code is pretty stable at this point but its still a maintance burden becuase we have to think about both sets anythime we are changing anything | |
| 10:26:45 | tobias-urdin | sean-k-mooney: i see, but using cpu_dedicated_set should that also honor numa_nodes? i understand, a lof of complexity involved with this amount of options that affect each other | |
| 10:27:12 | tobias-urdin | i.e i set hw:num_nodes=1 on a flavor | |
| 10:27:33 | bauzas | cores, needs a quick slap on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/874103 (max microversion for Antelope) | |
| 10:28:11 | sean-k-mooney | -2 it is then :p | |
| 10:28:19 | sean-k-mooney | lets see | |
| 10:28:39 | sean-k-mooney | yep makes sense | |
| 10:28:48 | sean-k-mooney | that was trivial enough that you could have single core approved that | |
| 10:28:51 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: we need it every cycle end | |
| 10:29:23 | sean-k-mooney | right but its a mechanical patch and pretty easy to see its correct | |
| 10:29:25 | bauzas | gmann: saw your ping, when you're up, let's discuss about the RBAC stuff for the prelude | |
| 10:29:31 | sean-k-mooney | anyway its on its way | |
| 10:30:02 | sean-k-mooney | although the main delta this time is 2023.1 Antelope | |
| 10:30:11 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: sure, but I prefer to ask for another review, and in case I don't have a second core, I can +W it | |
| 10:30:13 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. using both the number and the code name | |
| 10:31:10 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: not sure I understand your concern, takashi used both the number and the code name | |
| 10:31:24 | sean-k-mooney | its not a concern | |
| 10:31:28 | sean-k-mooney | i prefer having both | |
| 10:31:39 | sean-k-mooney | rather then just 2023.1 or antelope | |
| 10:32:07 | sean-k-mooney | that was the one thing i wanted to make sure was done in that patch | |
| 10:32:15 | sean-k-mooney | so the patch is correct | |
| 10:33:14 | sean-k-mooney | we listed the offical release name "2023.1" and the code name "Antelope" and listed teh offical release name "2023.1" first. | |
| 10:34:20 | bauzas | don't disagree here https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html | |
| 10:34:57 | sean-k-mooney | we are very close to being in violent agreement i think :) | |
| 10:37:47 | sean-k-mooney | tobias-urdin: cpu_dedicated_set supports numa yes | |
| 10:38:29 | sean-k-mooney | hw:numa_nodes was unaffected by the cpu tracking in placement spec | |
| 10:38:49 | sean-k-mooney | we do eventually want to supprot modeling numa in placment but its quite difficult | |
| 10:39:10 | sean-k-mooney | we have instead decided to track all resouces we can in placement first without numa | |
| 10:39:20 | sean-k-mooney | and then add numa at the end | |
| 10:39:34 | tobias-urdin | sean-k-mooney: ack, thanks for all your help – extremely helpful :) | |
| 10:39:34 | tobias-urdin | sean-k-mooney: ack, thanks for all your help – extremely helpful :) | |
| 10:40:07 | sean-k-mooney | the pci devices in placement spec added one of the builing block features we will need for numa in placment (the ablity for filters to filter on allcoations candiates) | |
| 10:40:38 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Add the 2023.1 Antelope prelude section https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/875380 | |
| 10:41:18 | sean-k-mooney | lol i tought you had written that but that was the release highlights | |
| 10:41:59 | sean-k-mooney | did we land the spice console compressiong feature | |
| 10:42:12 | bauzas | yes | |
| 10:42:22 | sean-k-mooney | good good | |
| 10:42:22 | opendevreview | Jorge San Emeterio proposed openstack/nova master: Moving privsep profiles to nova/__init__.py https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/872010 | |
| 10:44:37 | sean-k-mooney | i reviewed the spec for that and planned to review the feature i just ran out of time to do that im glad it landed | |
| 11:28:38 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: doc: mark the max microversion for 2023.1 Antelope https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/874103 | |
| 12:23:07 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/python-novaclient stable/2023.1: Update .gitreview for stable/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/875101 | |
| 12:26:51 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova stable/xena: Fix rescue volume-based instance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/875343 | |
| 12:27:56 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova stable/wallaby: Fix rescue volume-based instance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/875344 | |
| 12:28:38 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/os-vif stable/2023.1: Update .gitreview for stable/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/875095 | |
| 12:28:40 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/os-vif stable/2023.1: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/875096 | |
| 12:29:21 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/osc-placement stable/2023.1: Update .gitreview for stable/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/osc-placement/+/875098 | |
| 12:29:29 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova stable/xena: Handle InstanceInvalidState exception https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/875345 | |
| 12:30:13 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova stable/wallaby: Handle InstanceInvalidState exception https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/875346 | |
| 12:30:38 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/python-novaclient stable/2023.1: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/875102 | |
| 12:32:30 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova stable/victoria: Fix rescue volume-based instance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/875347 | |
| 12:33:52 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova stable/victoria: Handle InstanceInvalidState exception https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/875348 | |
| 12:40:11 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Doc: update live-migration cmd https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/875043 | |
| 12:46:48 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/osc-placement stable/2023.1: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/osc-placement/+/875099 | |
| 14:23:58 | opendevreview | Jorge San Emeterio proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Creating an example of the refactor privileged functions will go through. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/875497 | |
| 14:36:05 | artom | bauzas, dansmith_, is there an etherpad or something for all the CI issues currently hitting us? | |
| 14:36:08 | artom | jsanemet ^^ | |
| 14:36:36 | dansmith_ | artom: there's this at least: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=gate-failure | |
| 14:37:34 | artom | Do we still have an ELK/opensearch instance somewhere? | |
| 14:43:10 | artom | That needs a login? | |
| 14:44:47 | dansmith_ | openstack/openstack | |
| 14:44:53 | dansmith_ | it's apparently not option-able anymore | |
| 14:48:44 | artom | https://opensearch.logs.openstack.org/_dashboards/app/discover, you were missing an 'r' :) | |
| 14:52:29 | artom | jsanemet, ^^ so yeah, that allows you to search through all the logs we keep from our Zuul jobs | |
| 14:52:35 | artom | openstack/openstack to log in | |
| 14:52:49 | artom | There's a query language that I always get wrong to search for specific things | |
| 14:53:25 | jsanemet | cool, that will be useful | |
| 14:53:32 | artom | Apparently you can use https://opensearch.org/docs/latest/opensearch/query-dsl/index/, or Lucene directly | |
| 14:56:24 | artom | I don't know a lot about Lucene, https://www.lucenetutorial.com/lucene-query-syntax.html I guess? | |
| 14:56:53 | jsanemet | ok, i will play with these a little bit, see what can be done | |
| 14:57:05 | artom | So yeah, jsanemet, if you're interested in helping fix gate bugs, ^^ is a useful tool, and I'm sure dansmith's will be more than happy to take you under his wing and show you everything he knows ;) | |
| 14:57:47 | jsanemet | i need to take a look at the reported bugs from before | |
| 14:58:01 | jsanemet | but i will see if i can pick up something | |
| 14:58:12 | jsanemet | will be great to contribute | |
| 15:11:27 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Transport context to all threads https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/827467 | |
| 15:33:28 | Uggla | bauzas, I need your opinion on that bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2008461, the bug seems legit, but the method is marked deprecated and might be removed at some point. How do you treat this bug ? | |
| 15:33:59 | Uggla | bauzas, I mean should I set it to valid in this case ? | |
| 15:34:39 | Uggla | s/valid/confirmed | |