Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2026-03-11
13:30:39 opendevreview Dominik proposed openstack/nova master: NUMA Topology with Resource Providers: Scheduler changes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/971176
13:37:18 opendevreview Dominik proposed openstack/nova master: Regression test for Placement allocations remaining during failed schedule https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969251
13:38:27 opendevreview Dominik proposed openstack/nova master: Remove Placement allocations in the broken build cleanup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/968446
13:39:44 sean-k-mooney DominikDanelski[m]: ill need to find some dedicated time to reveiw the actual fix but we can likely proceed with the repoducer
13:40:06 sean-k-mooney i think the acual fix is reasonable
13:40:21 nicolairuckel I noticed something else that seems odd to me. The CI fails for one of my backports to 2025.1 (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/979866) because of the check-cherry-pick job. Since the cherry-picked commit wasn't merged to 2025.2 yet that makes sense to me. But shouldn't this also fail then? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/979865.
13:40:25 sean-k-mooney but i have not loaded context on the code to really say definititvly
13:55:37 opendevreview Akira KAMIO proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: honor flavor disk bus and SCSI model for BFV https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/980072
14:05:15 opendevreview Thibaut Démaret proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: add disk rotation_rate support for local disks https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/979693
14:46:05 Uggla gibi or melwitt can you have a look at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934984/9 there is a +2 from dansmith and sean-k-mooney previously. So I think it can be merged. Unless dansmith has an objection ?
14:47:46 dansmith no direct objection other than that rc1 is tomorrow and we really need to be quieting down.. you decide if it's better to do that now vs backport on friday.. like, if we start seeing failures after rc1 is cut...
14:48:58 sean-k-mooney i can review again im not against +2ing but im inclidned to hold +w until rc1 is tagged
14:52:06 Uggla sean-k-mooney, dansmith, we merged the reproducer. Is it ok if we don't merge the fix before rc1 ?
14:52:23 sean-k-mooney sure why would it not be
14:52:26 opendevreview Max proposed openstack/nova master: fix: device_by_alias should respect config type https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/975651
14:52:29 dansmith of course
14:52:35 sean-k-mooney we have had repoduces in the code base fo months before the acual fix
14:53:06 sean-k-mooney its just a test and has no runtime impact on the shipped nova content
14:53:26 Uggla ok so it will be after rc1.
14:53:42 sean-k-mooney we can proably merge it early next week
14:53:55 sean-k-mooney we just wotn cherry pick it until after the offical release is done
14:54:20 sean-k-mooney note ill be on pto monday->wednesday inclusive
14:55:09 Uggla sean-k-mooney, dansmith, bauzas, gibi, gmaan I think nothing on your radars that still needs to land before RC1 ?
14:55:37 Uggla melwitt too ^
14:55:50 dansmith nothing on my radar, although the dev alias fixes from MaxLamprecht[m] are definitely on my short list after
14:55:54 sean-k-mooney not form me. i have some bug fixes i would like review on but not before rc1 or the final rc
14:56:12 Uggla stephenfin too ^
14:56:48 sean-k-mooney Uggla: i think most of us are in a wait and see holding patten until the rc is done and trying to minimise change
14:57:18 Uggla sean-k-mooney, yep that's my feeling too. But just checking with all of you.
14:58:40 sean-k-mooney Uggla: https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bug/2140631%22 and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/975500 are the changes i personally want to make progress on next but they can wait a week or two
14:59:23 sean-k-mooney the second id very low risk but we can backprot that to enable the ci testing later. neutorn alrady have it enabeld on there side
14:59:34 Uggla sean-k-mooney ok
15:00:10 opendevreview OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/placement stable/2026.1: Update .gitreview for stable/2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/980094
15:00:11 opendevreview OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/placement stable/2026.1: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/980095
15:00:13 opendevreview OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/placement master: Update master for stable/2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/980096
15:01:45 sean-k-mooney on a releated note ^ they have actully started creating the rc/stable branch today so the point is sort of mute
15:04:01 sean-k-mooney Uggla: on an unrelated note did you ever start woring on manilla share hotplug or live migration supprot
15:04:20 sean-k-mooney i know we wanted to do add supprot for memfd as well
15:04:32 sean-k-mooney to improve the overall expeince
15:04:41 sean-k-mooney is that still somethign your interested in?
15:06:11 Uggla sean-k-mooney, this is on the radar for H. I know I'll have some time to prepare the spec for share hotplug and live migration support. So we could discuss at the PTG.
15:06:14 stephenfin Uggla: nothing from me either. I have a few bug fixes starting at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/974687/ but they're all latent issues/not regressions
15:06:37 stephenfin though I will note server share support is still not done in SDK or OSC
15:06:53 stephenfin that should really happen in H: it's been 3 or 4 cycles now
15:06:56 Uggla stephenfin, i know :(
15:07:21 sean-k-mooney Uggla: ya it would be nice ot have at least a daft spec on that topic before the ptg if you intened to progress it but cool good to know
15:07:51 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: 2 it merged in 2025.1
15:07:57 sean-k-mooney but yes it should
15:08:12 stephenfin 3 we won't get it done in G
15:08:15 stephenfin :)
15:08:44 sean-k-mooney i guess it depend on how you count be either way ya it shoudl be resolved if we expect to extend it in h
15:09:07 sean-k-mooney i woudl assum that horizon also does not have supprot for it
15:09:20 Uggla sean-k-mooney, stephenfin, my understanding is that it is an "internal" priority now, so that might help.
15:09:22 sean-k-mooney coudl be good to add to a cross project session
15:09:41 opendevreview Akira KAMIO proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: support flavor disk/cdrom bus and SCSI model https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/980072
15:09:46 stephenfin that would be my assumption. And I don't think Gophercloud does either so right now no one can use it using our clients
15:09:59 stephenfin except if they're using gtema's rust client, perhaps
15:21:11 gmaan Uggla: stephenfin we need to get this in before rc1, still stuck in gate https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/978494
15:21:33 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: speaking of sdk/client supprot have you added suprpot for flavor seach by name
15:21:50 sean-k-mooney i.e. openstack flavor list --name ...
15:21:51 stephenfin oh, I thought that had merged already
15:21:59 sean-k-mooney it may have i just never checked
15:22:18 sean-k-mooney oh you mean ganshams link
15:22:58 sean-k-mooney that woudl quallify for rc2 anwyay and befcause fo the oder we do the rpc version pinning we alwasy? have one
15:23:01 stephenfin yeah. I haven't done the client changes yet
15:25:02 sean-k-mooney ok i should go back to testing things o/
15:27:38 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/980101
15:28:58 sean-k-mooney do we need changes (seperatly) for 103
15:29:05 sean-k-mooney to acoont for the rild cleanup
15:29:15 opendevreview Merged openstack/placement master: Update master for stable/2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/980096
15:29:28 sean-k-mooney maybe it woudl be good to have a list of these soemwhere
15:30:12 opendevreview Merged openstack/placement stable/2026.1: Update .gitreview for stable/2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/980094
15:32:53 opendevreview Merged openstack/placement stable/2026.1: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/980095
15:51:01 gibi Uggla: nothing on my radar that needed in rc1
15:51:38 gibi but I see we are tracking a fix above
16:07:29 opendevreview Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Add functional tests for NUMA aware vswitches https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/979999
16:34:56 Uggla gibi, yes gmaan's patch which does not want to land. :)
17:48:27 opendevreview Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Add functional tests for NUMA aware vswitches https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/979999
20:37:06 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova stable/2025.2: Move cleanup of vTPM secret from driver to compute https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/979052
21:28:34 opendevreview melanie witt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Amend vTPM live migration spec https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/980165
21:28:35 opendevreview melanie witt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Propose vTPM live migration: 'deployment' mode https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/980166
21:31:52 opendevreview melanie witt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Propose vTPM live migration: 'deployment' mode https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/980166
21:34:03 melwitt Uggla: my lame attempt to split the spec ^ I kept the original blueprint url the same but updated the "title" to say 'host' mode. and I made a new blueprint for 'deployment' mode here https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/vtpm-live-migration-deployment-mode (which is linked in the new spec)
21:45:07 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: Fix wrong strict assertion of quota class set id https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/978494
#openstack-nova - 2026-03-12
00:09:04 opendevreview Ashish Gupta proposed openstack/nova master: Add native threading support to test case ID propagation fixtures https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/980179
04:09:08 seyeongkim Do you think there’s a chance this patch could be merged into master, or does it need more work? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/963665 Thanks!
05:22:36 opendevreview Nicolai Ruckel proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: Preserve vTPM state between power off and power on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/979866
07:10:38 opendevreview Ashish Gupta proposed openstack/nova master: Add native threading support to test case ID propagation fixtures https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/980179
07:49:13 Uggla gmann, gibi, 978494: Fix wrong strict assertion of quota class set id | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/9784gibi finally merged. What was just a matter of crossing fingers. :)
07:55:42 Uggla gibi, bauzas if you can review / +w 979008: Update compute rpc alias for Gazpacho | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/979008, 979016: Add service version for Gazpacho | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/979016 and 979023: Add Gazpacho prelude section | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/979023
07:56:59 Uggla gibi, bauzas, and this one too: 980165: Amend vTPM live migration spec | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/980165
08:11:02 bauzas sure, I'll review those patches
08:11:06 bauzas (I'm used to :) )
09:48:16 bauzas sean-k-mooney: fwiw, I started to peek at numa aware vswitches numa affinity problems and I created functests here for reproducing : https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/979999/
09:48:59 bauzas at the moment, I'm not seeing any issue by the fixtures, as the scheduler provides limits to the compute claim
09:49:43 bauzas that's only when the filter doesn't pass the limits or if the reqspec is modified that we no longer get the limits for the claim and then the compute doesn't look at the numa nodes affinities
10:10:48 opendevreview Dominik proposed openstack/nova master: NUMA Topology with Resource Providers: Libvirt NUMA Migrate https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/971177
11:51:30 sean-k-mooney bauzas: the probelm is not in the schduler
11:51:39 sean-k-mooney bauzas: so in the schduler it works its on the compute node
11:52:13 sean-k-mooney bauzas: when we reproduced it in a devstack enve we saw the schduelr do the right thing but when the compute agent called the same code it did not

Earlier   Later