| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-04-03 | |||
| 17:03:23 | sean-k-mooney | - Passed: 100 | |
| 17:03:25 | sean-k-mooney | - Skipped: 0 | |
| 17:03:27 | sean-k-mooney | - Expected Fail: 0 | |
| 17:03:29 | sean-k-mooney | - Unexpected Success: 0 | |
| 17:03:31 | sean-k-mooney | - Failed: 0 | |
| 17:03:33 | sean-k-mooney | Sum of execute time for each test: 353.3871 sec. | |
| 17:03:35 | sean-k-mooney | i mean it seam to work as it is | |
| 17:03:37 | sean-k-mooney | so im less concerned now | |
| 17:05:54 | melwitt | yeah I think what could mess it up is if the timing was sufficiently bad, like what if the _wait got delayed due to CI node busyness and it misses the intermediate state of "detaching". so I think you're right there is some instability possible there | |
| 17:06:26 | sean-k-mooney | ya it could happen. we could rehceck it once or twice | |
| 17:06:42 | sean-k-mooney | its a test only change so it does not run tempest | |
| 17:06:47 | sean-k-mooney | so rechecking is cheap | |
| 17:06:52 | melwitt | yeah. I'll try the event thing. oh right | |
| 17:07:43 | sean-k-mooney | ack, no worreis if you dont hcange it. i upgraded to +2 and rechecked | |
| 17:07:50 | melwitt | and also I was thinking future failures after it merged | |
| 17:07:51 | sean-k-mooney | if we recheck once more after that | |
| 17:07:58 | sean-k-mooney | i think we are good | |
| 17:08:15 | sean-k-mooney | ya its the future case that i was thinking of | |
| 17:08:25 | sean-k-mooney | we have loops like this today | |
| 17:08:30 | sean-k-mooney | but we have had issues with them too | |
| 17:08:45 | sean-k-mooney | so im alwasy cautious when adding more | |
| 17:08:55 | melwitt | yeah. also probably wastes some time due to the loop | |
| 17:09:52 | sean-k-mooney | technially yes but its 3.5 seccond pretty reliably on my laptop | |
| 17:09:58 | sean-k-mooney | not amazing but not terrible | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-04-04 | |||
| 07:24:42 | zigo | FYI, we were affected by nova-compute flapping, we applied https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939317 and that solved the issue for us. Thanks to melwitt and others who worked on it. | |
| 08:06:39 | opendevreview | Masahito Muroi proposed openstack/nova master: Use dict object for request_specs_dict in the _list_view https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939658 | |
| 13:04:38 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: i feel like you will care about https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-2025.2-ptg#L577 | |
| 13:04:45 | sean-k-mooney | wel have an opionion | |
| 13:05:19 | sean-k-mooney | care implies a positive emotional sentement that i dont think you will express toward the idea | |
| 13:06:43 | sahid | o/ | |
| 13:07:35 | sahid | We don't have any logs in scheduler to give some information regarding the how the list is re-ordered by weighter | |
| 13:08:22 | sean-k-mooney | we do at debug | |
| 13:08:29 | sean-k-mooney | we have the weights per host | |
| 13:08:43 | sean-k-mooney | per weigher | |
| 13:36:07 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: that line is blank, which thing? | |
| 14:00:17 | frickler | hmm, the timeslider sadly doesn't show line numbers. the line's now at #578 now, though | |
| 14:00:49 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: I would quite like an equivalent to oVirt's VDSM hooking mechanism in Nova. | |
| 14:01:16 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. the requst to have a way to add arbiatry hooks to modify the libvirt xml without chanign nova | |
| 14:01:18 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: okay I figured that might be it :) | |
| 14:03:24 | dansmith | bauzas: any chance you could try to review some of this OTU series? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944148 | |
| 14:03:37 | dansmith | the bottom two are just trivial setup for the larger one above | |
| 14:03:39 | bauzas_ | dansmith: I definitely want to | |
| 14:03:57 | dansmith | all of them are +2 already, so the bottom two could probably be sent to the gate without a lot of time investment :) | |
| 14:03:58 | dansmith | thanks | |
| 14:43:59 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: +2w on the first patch +2 on the second with a question https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944149/comment/133f1fc5_dabaf92d/ | |
| 14:44:29 | sean-k-mooney | im going ot grab somethign to drink and kick off a devstack install but ill try and take a look at the rest when i get back | |
| 14:44:54 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: please see response | |
| 14:45:17 | dansmith | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/943816/12/nova/compute/pci_placement_translator.py specifically L202 here :) | |
| 14:51:26 | sahid | sean-k-mooney: We don't have any logs like for filters. Filter Computefilter returned 2 host(s) I could be good to know the weighter as-well. Exemple I have removed one of them and I have no idea whether it is well removed or not | |
| 14:52:39 | sahid | I can see a ligne WeighedHost but no detail about which weighter was used to order the list | |
| 15:11:37 | sean-k-mooney | sahid: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/95c4e84b168d4a79ba750797f28a81c7/log/controller/logs/screen-n-sch.txt#1010 | |
| 15:12:07 | sean-k-mooney | we have output per weigher per host both pre and post normaization and multiplying | |
| 15:12:41 | sean-k-mooney | sahid: again only at debug level like the filters | |
| 15:13:02 | sean-k-mooney | grep for "DEBUG nova.weights" in yoru logs | |
| 15:15:51 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/9d910ec4bf2a12baf3b5f0ec3bc41686413538fb/nova/weights.py#L136-L170 | |
| 15:16:15 | sean-k-mooney | sahid: it was added 4 years ago https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/154ab7b2f9ad80fe432d2c036d5e8c4ee171897b | |
| 15:17:19 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: that not what i was asking let me restate it | |
| 15:17:37 | dansmith | oh? okay | |
| 15:17:56 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: do we need to invaliate the cache for all pci in placement RPs or just the one that also are marked OTU | |
| 15:18:12 | sean-k-mooney | for normal devies we do not expect the reserved to change | |
| 15:19:02 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: ah, so if you look at some of gibi's comments on the commit message, he noted that PCI-in-placement specifically calls out reserved as a thing that could be changed by the operator directly in placement, | |
| 15:19:40 | dansmith | and as such it's probably good that we invalidate our cache for all of those to make sure we're seeing the right info, even though technically only OTUs care at the moment | |
| 15:19:44 | sean-k-mooney | oh it does? ok i dont know why but if that the exsign bevhiaor then the code you wote makes sense | |
| 15:20:15 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: yeah he provided a link to a comment in the code that specifically says that, and asked for me to add words to the commit message about it | |
| 15:20:31 | sean-k-mooney | i dont knwo what the orginal usecase for allowing the reserved to be change was but if thats the case then il upgrade to +w | |
| 15:21:00 | dansmith | so we _could_ potentially follow up with this and use the OTU trait as well to control invalidation, but I think he would argue it's best if we just don't so that future developers are clear that we won't get stuck in the same way I initially did until I added this :) | |
| 15:21:04 | sean-k-mooney | ah https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944149/6//COMMIT_MSG#15 | |
| 15:21:22 | sean-k-mooney | ok i missed that when i looked at the comit | |
| 15:22:03 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: the idea behind it is that nova should own as small part of the inventory as it cares about. Before OTU it only cared about total and max_unit (as it is mandatory) so the rest of the field was never set in the inventory of a PCI RP | |
| 15:22:09 | gibi | making it possible to set externally | |
| 15:22:14 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: well as we dicussed a few weeks ago im not really sure why we are caching at all | |
| 15:22:25 | sean-k-mooney | so im all for being safe with correctness here | |
| 15:22:32 | sean-k-mooney | even if it might be slightly slower | |
| 15:23:00 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: right and nova cares about reserved even without OTU | |
| 15:23:08 | sean-k-mooney | we report the inventory based on the devspec | |
| 15:23:15 | dansmith | well, for a big tree of lots of providers it probably is a real gain, but brings problems like this (as does all caching of course) | |
| 15:23:29 | sean-k-mooney | so you shoudl never be chanign reserved since that will mnake placement and the pci deivces tabel be sort of out of sync | |
| 15:24:32 | sean-k-mooney | anywya dont wnat ot boil the ocean i was just wonderigy why we were not checkifn for "is pci in placement and one time use" rather then just "is pci in placment" | |
| 15:25:20 | dansmith | well, that patch is before OTU, so that's part of why :) | |
| 15:26:08 | sean-k-mooney | ya i was orgianly wondering if that was the reason nad if you were going to modify it again in the next patch | |
| 15:26:10 | dansmith | nova is not currently reporting anything reserved for pci-in-placement providers, AFAIK (other than OTU in the next patch), so I think gibi's point is that if you want to reserve some VFs you would do it in placement directly | |
| 15:26:23 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: yeah I understand now, I just didn't get that from your comment :) | |
| 15:27:54 | sean-k-mooney | no worries. so +2w on the first too. ill take a look at the rest once i have devstack deploying | |
| 15:28:01 | dansmith | thanks | |
| 15:33:24 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: as an aside, you have a vexhost lable created have you tried to use this in ci yet? | |
| 15:40:01 | sean-k-mooney | so the host im using is not the one that has igb support. you said in your testing the rng didnt crash the host vm? | |
| 15:40:17 | sean-k-mooney | if so ill see if i can ply with that as well | |
| 15:49:39 | dansmith | (on a call) | |
| 16:03:43 | melwitt | zigo: just fyi that we had a partial regression involving mdevs with that patch which was tracked and fixed here https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2098892 | |
| 16:21:01 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: not urgent but you have a trival bug in the unit test. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/943816/comment/4d20bb05_6116bff7/ it does no tactully break anything so it can be a follow up | |
| 16:26:36 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: ah yeah will fix in a follow up.. | |
| 16:27:34 | sean-k-mooney | your not actully building it into a treee or populating the pci tracker so technically it wont break anything. it just will be confusing if we read it in like a year so ya no need to respine but nice to fix | |
| 16:28:55 | dansmith | yep, spinning a follow-up now | |
| 16:29:03 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: are you holding the +W until you test locally? | |
| 16:29:44 | dansmith | oh nm :) | |
| 16:30:01 | sean-k-mooney | i was until my devstack failed for the 3 time | |
| 16:30:08 | dansmith | heh | |
| 16:33:57 | sean-k-mooney | there is a patch sitting in ci to make our new prometous plugin not fail if /etc/promethous exists and i keep forgetting i need to delete the dir before i restack | |
| 16:34:57 | sean-k-mooney | i should just checkout the fixed version but im manually testing a docs change for the default local.conf | |
| 16:36:03 | sean-k-mooney | * default of watcher + promethous | |