| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-01-19 | |||
| 09:55:11 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: WIP Support migration with ephemeral encryption https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/905512 | |
| 09:55:13 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Introduce support for raw with LUKS https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/884313 | |
| 09:55:13 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Introduce support for qcow2 with LUKS https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/772273 | |
| 09:55:15 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Introduce support for rbd with LUKS https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/889912 | |
| 10:46:02 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: vgpu: Allow device_addresses to not be set https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/902084 | |
| 10:46:02 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Cap with max_instances GPU types https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/899625 | |
| 10:46:03 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: add coverage for registered dyn opts https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/902771 | |
| 10:54:54 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: FUP: add coverage for registered dyn opts https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/902771 | |
| 13:18:46 | opendevreview | Tobias Urdin proposed openstack/nova master: Fail nova-compute startup when RP cannot be created https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/904381 | |
| 13:25:04 | opendevreview | Tobias Urdin proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: set remaining to 0 when no disk to migrate https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873846 | |
| 13:25:09 | opendevreview | Tobias Urdin proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: set remaining to 0 when no disk to migrate https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873846 | |
| 13:29:28 | opendevreview | Tobias Urdin proposed openstack/nova master: Fix wrong nova-manage command in upgrade check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/880819 | |
| 13:33:50 | opendevreview | Tobias Urdin proposed openstack/nova master: Remove libvirt tunnelled migration https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/879021 | |
| 13:36:20 | opendevreview | Tobias Urdin proposed openstack/nova master: Remove libvirt tunnelled migration https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/879021 | |
| 14:28:45 | opendevreview | Tobias Urdin proposed openstack/nova master: Fail nova-compute startup when RP cannot be created https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/904381 | |
| 14:38:30 | opendevreview | Tobias Urdin proposed openstack/nova master: Fail nova-compute startup when RP cannot be created https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/904381 | |
| 14:48:43 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: [ironic] Partition & use cache for list_instance* https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/900831 | |
| 14:52:32 | bauzas | gibi: thanks a lot for the mdev series on both bugfix series | |
| 14:52:47 | bauzas | gibi: are you available for discussing about https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/845757/3/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#8563 ? | |
| 14:58:55 | bauzas | (just replied) | |
| 14:59:17 | gibi | bauzas: o/. | |
| 14:59:34 | bauzas | tl;dr: we continue to support VGPU allocations reshape in our code | |
| 14:59:40 | bauzas | and yeah, that's crazy. | |
| 14:59:45 | gibi | so the reshape test needs a from state and to create a from state we need to support some old behavior? | |
| 15:00:07 | bauzas | gibi: well, the better would be to cut from tree all the reshape code | |
| 15:00:15 | bauzas | that's what I replied | |
| 15:00:30 | bauzas | I'm just about to file a blueprint about it | |
| 15:01:37 | bauzas | papework-wise, I feel brave enough to have a 6th effort on VGPU (and a 6th potential conflict) that would drop the whole reshape code (and tests) | |
| 15:01:50 | bauzas | and then amend my bugfix to not care about non-nested RPs | |
| 15:02:08 | bauzas | but see, that's chicken and eggs here | |
| 15:02:09 | gibi | can we decouple the test from the reshape support? E.g. can we prepare the from state purely in placement / db and then let the reshape code run on that state? | |
| 15:02:53 | gibi | (I'm not suggesting to do the reshape removal in the current cycle) | |
| 15:03:26 | bauzas | gibi: not sure I get your point, are you asking me to modify my patch to assert that that the allocated RP is always a child RP ? | |
| 15:03:51 | bauzas | and then, just fix the test to not fail | |
| 15:03:54 | gibi | 1) on your patch I only asked for a tracker for the cleanup so you don't need to change anything there | |
| 15:04:32 | gibi | 2) when thinking about the removal of the `allocated_rp.parent_uuid is None:` conditional | |
| 15:05:13 | gibi | I assume that you need that conditional becuase the functional reshape test sets up the from state (with VGPU on root RP) while nova is running and therefore you need the conditional | |
| 15:05:28 | gibi | is it so? | |
| 15:06:51 | gibi | OR, does _allocate_mdevs called during reshape itself? | |
| 15:07:16 | gibi | and during reshape you need the conditional | |
| 15:07:38 | gibi | anyhow this is not super important now. We have a tracker, we will get back to this when we have time to clean up | |
| 15:09:45 | bauzas | sorry, was filing the blueprint | |
| 15:09:48 | bauzas | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/drop-vgpu-reshape-support | |
| 15:10:19 | gibi | thanks! | |
| 15:10:35 | bauzas | yeah, that's correct, the reshape test assumes to create a mdev *before* the reshape | |
| 15:10:45 | bauzas | so we can reshape the allocation | |
| 15:10:53 | bauzas | hence the crazy conditional | |
| 15:11:39 | gibi | OK. so hypotetically we could try to set up the from state purely in DB / placement and only start up the nova-compute service after it. So we won't try to create an mdev with nova in the from state | |
| 15:12:08 | bauzas | I would need to read the functional test in question but I get your point | |
| 15:12:08 | gibi | but I guess it is better use of our time to remove the whole reshape support | |
| 15:12:34 | bauzas | that's actually maybe something to test quickly | |
| 15:12:55 | bauzas | I can write a POC on top of that patch | |
| 15:13:16 | gibi | if you have time :) | |
| 15:13:21 | bauzas | as a FUP, that'd remove the logic and then we could see what exactly to do in the functest | |
| 15:13:46 | bauzas | gibi: I can try to spend a couple of hours on that, I'm pretty done with implementing stuff now | |
| 15:13:58 | bauzas | my left tasks are mostly rebases and reviews | |
| 15:14:07 | bauzas | + the mtty patch | |
| 15:14:52 | bauzas | gibi: thanks for your idea, I'll try it ;) | |
| 15:15:14 | gibi | cool :) | |
| 16:10:54 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: tbc, you're -1.9999 because of the documentation for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/845757 ? | |
| 16:12:03 | bauzas | I'm asking for that due to the fact you're OK with the functest https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/845747/3 | |
| 16:12:24 | bauzas | what I could do is try to test with two different custom rcs | |
| 16:12:37 | bauzas | so we could document that this way | |
| 16:24:10 | kashyap | tobias-urdin: Thanks for the respin here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/879021. Will look on Mon. (I'm buried in another context now) | |
| 16:40:13 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Support multiple allocations for vGPUs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/845757 | |
| 16:44:34 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: updated based on your concerns of the portability of group_policy ^ | |
| 16:45:06 | bauzas | I still think we want to document this as this is simpler for operators if they don't give a shit about other nested resource classes | |
| 16:45:34 | bauzas | if you look at the generated docs, they will see a big red warning about using group_policy | |
| 17:08:48 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: i thikn we shoudl be removing all supprot for group_policy in the flavor | |
| 17:09:33 | sean-k-mooney | and in placement in a new placment microverison | |
| 17:09:49 | sean-k-mooney | isolsate beween sepicifc groups is fine | |
| 17:09:54 | sean-k-mooney | but not how it currently works | |
| 17:14:31 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: regarding the funtional test i woudl personally prefer if you provided fucntioal tests usign custom resouce classes and/or traits too | |
| 17:14:47 | bauzas | have you seen my new revision ? | |
| 17:15:30 | sean-k-mooney | of the followup patch yes im still -1.999 | |
| 17:15:41 | bauzas | I tend to disagree with you | |
| 17:15:48 | sean-k-mooney | maybe -1.95 you did at least add the other options | |
| 17:16:01 | bauzas | because we have a gap that we need to solve | |
| 17:16:20 | bauzas | I'm just fixing some tech debt where we were only looking at one allocation | |
| 17:16:35 | bauzas | and I'm just documenting ways to alleviate the problem | |
| 17:16:36 | sean-k-mooney | im ok with you documeiting the group_policy way if its not the first way we present adn it not the one we recommend | |
| 17:17:07 | bauzas | the group policy is really the simplest way for ops that don't care about qos-bandwidth or other nested resources | |
| 17:17:28 | bauzas | and there are big warnings in the docs explaining the limitations of that approach | |
| 17:17:37 | sean-k-mooney | sure but that does not mean the shoudl use it even if they dont have those constraits | |
| 17:17:44 | bauzas | so your -1.95 seems very nitpicky honestlyu | |
| 17:17:46 | sean-k-mooney | it the way that will cause them the most upgrade pain | |
| 17:17:55 | sean-k-mooney | would you prefer i put it to -2 then | |
| 17:18:09 | bauzas | putting -2 for docs seems a bit harsh for me | |
| 17:18:19 | bauzas | I can just remove the whole doc | |
| 17:18:22 | sean-k-mooney | its not about the doc | |
| 17:18:24 | bauzas | and leave the patch | |
| 17:18:36 | bauzas | I can even drop the functional test | |
| 17:18:44 | sean-k-mooney | its about recomending somehting that we know will cause upgrade apin in the future | |
| 17:19:11 | sean-k-mooney | the func test is fine | |
| 17:19:18 | bauzas | do you understand that all of your concerns are about the doc file ? | |
| 17:19:25 | bauzas | not about the python module? | |
| 17:19:51 | bauzas | like I said, I can just drop the doc and leave ops find the way they prefer by themselves | |
| 17:19:58 | sean-k-mooney | so i think it woudl be nice ot have other func test as well but you have enocuh to merge the patch i think | |
| 17:20:02 | sean-k-mooney | so yes its all about the doc | |
| 17:20:14 | bauzas | so, I'll split the patch | |