| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2026-06-12 | |||
| 18:13:41 | gmaan | sean-k-mooney: thanks, did not get chance to check if those are passing, fixed. | |
| 18:17:00 | sean-k-mooney | actully | |
| 18:17:14 | sean-k-mooney | gmaan: so to melwitt's point | |
| 18:17:25 | sean-k-mooney | for thos to pass we need the fixes that gibi is making in nova | |
| 18:17:31 | sean-k-mooney | so instead fo doing that | |
| 18:17:44 | sean-k-mooney | why dont we fix those in whitebox in the new jobs | |
| 18:17:56 | sean-k-mooney | and then change the job we are running on stable | |
| 18:18:29 | gmaan | you mean separate jobs to run on stable | |
| 18:18:30 | sean-k-mooney | since they are perodic we dont care about the overried checkout | |
| 18:19:04 | sean-k-mooney | ya so the master jobs your addign on master | |
| 18:19:07 | gmaan | we can, I think that will be easy to maintain things on one side (whitebox plugin) | |
| 18:19:17 | gmaan | let me do it | |
| 18:19:22 | sean-k-mooney | right we can update the exclude as we add things | |
| 18:19:33 | gmaan | neutron plugin does the same and it is helpful | |
| 18:19:49 | sean-k-mooney | ack ya so i think that the better patten then | |
| 18:20:02 | sean-k-mooney | nova will still need a stabel patch per branch but only to use the relevent job | |
| 18:20:53 | sean-k-mooney | ok im really going to call it a day as i feel myself stuggaleing to thing that ture o/ | |
| 18:22:08 | gmaan | o/ no worry, I will propose those. | |
| 18:22:51 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: have a nice weekend o/ | |
| 18:23:02 | sean-k-mooney | you too o/ | |
| 19:37:08 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam Maan proposed openstack/nova stable/2026.1: DNM: testing whitebox stable branch jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/993173 | |
| 19:37:27 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam Maan proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.2: DNM: testing whitebox stable branch jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/993174 | |
| 19:37:38 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam Maan proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: DNM: testing whitebox stable branch jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/993175 | |
| 20:08:32 | melwitt | gmaan: this release notes static page change is ready for your re-review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/989211 you were previously +2 but your vote got dropped by a new PS | |
| 20:10:14 | gmaan | melwitt: thanks, done | |
| 20:10:51 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Use static pages for eol release release notes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/989210 | |
| 20:27:35 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Use static pages for eom release release notes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/989211 | |
| 20:34:34 | opendevreview | Brian Haley proposed openstack/nova master: Change neutron API calls to use project_id https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/991948 | |
| 20:53:17 | opendevreview | Brian Haley proposed openstack/nova master: Change neutron API calls to use project_id https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/991948 | |
| 22:02:25 | opendevreview | Brian Haley proposed openstack/nova master: Change neutron API calls to use project_id https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/991948 | |
| 22:33:57 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: docs: Speed up release notes builds https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/989212 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2026-06-13 | |||
| 02:06:16 | opendevreview | Brian Haley proposed openstack/nova master: Change neutron API calls to use project_id https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/991948 | |
| 02:48:32 | gmaan | melwitt: sean-k-mooney[m] gibi I separated the whitebox-devstack-multinode job definition for stable branches in whitebox plugin itself via 'branches' variant, and it is working fine https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/whitebox-tempest-plugin/+/992998 | |
| 02:49:21 | gmaan | and we do not need any modification on nova or any other user of that job. it is tested in https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22whitebox-stable-branch-jobs%22 | |
| 02:49:35 | gmaan | stable/2025.1 is broken for more tests but that is separate things to fix | |
| 08:20:25 | opendevreview | huangjs3 proposed openstack/nova master: cpu monitor: avoid ZeroDivisionError on non-positive cputime delta https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/993205 | |
| 16:05:46 | opendevreview | huangjs3 proposed openstack/nova master: scheduler: avoid IndexError when no nova-scheduler is live https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/993246 | |
| 16:15:07 | opendevreview | huangjs3 proposed openstack/nova master: scheduler: skip tick when no scheduler is live https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/993246 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2026-06-15 | |||
| 06:51:37 | opendevreview | wanghongtao proposed openstack/nova master: Fix operator precedence in limit_check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/993297 | |
| 07:26:21 | opendevreview | Shalini Srivastava proposed openstack/nova master: Filter invalid kwargs in volume_api.create to prevent TypeError https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/993306 | |
| 07:39:36 | opendevreview | Kamil Sambor proposed openstack/nova master: Restore 'fork' start method for daemon mode on Python 3.14 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/987815 | |
| 07:57:59 | opendevreview | Ashish Gupta proposed openstack/placement master: tests: Add connection parameter to Database and PlacementFixture https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/993106 | |
| 09:17:42 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: docs: Speed up release notes builds https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/989212 | |
| 09:21:24 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: docs: Speed up release notes builds https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/989212 | |
| 09:35:46 | opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/nova master: Add mtty/mdpy support for testing fake mdevs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/898100 | |
| 09:35:47 | opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/nova master: Rename vtpm job and add mtty support for vpgu test https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/922140 | |
| 10:32:58 | opendevreview | Shalini Srivastava proposed openstack/nova master: Filter invalid kwargs in volume_api.create to prevent TypeError https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/993306 | |
| 11:17:43 | opendevreview | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/nova master: Use SDK for Neutron Ports https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969298 | |
| 11:19:54 | opendevreview | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/nova master: Use SDK for Neutron security-groups https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/981141 | |
| 11:33:26 | opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/nova master: Rename vtpm job and add mtty support for vpgu test https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/922140 | |
| 12:25:02 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney[m]: gibi; could either of you look at https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bug/2153425%22 ? I'm all good | |
| 12:28:48 | opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/nova master: Rename vtpm job and add mtty support for vpgu test https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/922140 | |
| 12:45:51 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: sorry was on a call but i can take a look quickly | |
| 12:46:20 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: so i have been watching the updates on this passivly | |
| 12:46:35 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: this is not quite enough to fix numa vswitch correct? | |
| 12:47:01 | sean-k-mooney | its related but this is only for the live migration path | |
| 12:47:06 | bauzas | it should be good | |
| 12:47:14 | sean-k-mooney | we still have the issue with the compute not havig it on spwawn | |
| 12:47:21 | bauzas | at least we have a customer asking for it | |
| 12:47:25 | sean-k-mooney | or cold migrate | |
| 12:48:00 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: what i mean is this will help with live migration but there is more work needed to make sure that all code path include the limits | |
| 12:49:18 | bauzas | we can ask that for a follow-up | |
| 12:49:23 | sean-k-mooney | bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2145135 we alos have a gap for https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1855332 | |
| 12:49:40 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: sure im not saying its inscope fo those change | |
| 12:49:55 | sean-k-mooney | but you were previsoly working on bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2145135 a month or two ago | |
| 12:50:02 | sean-k-mooney | that why im bringing the topic up | |
| 12:50:28 | sean-k-mooney | anyway ill review it now i just want to clear on the scope | |
| 12:52:14 | bauzas | ack thanks | |
| 12:53:16 | sean-k-mooney | just an fyi the expecation in the bug are also incorrect https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2153425 | |
| 12:53:21 | sean-k-mooney | setting only `{‘hw:numa_nodes’: ‘1’}` | |
| 12:53:42 | sean-k-mooney | does not claim any cpu or memroy in the host numa tracker but it does end up with the vm being pinned | |
| 12:53:50 | sean-k-mooney | to a host numa cell | |
| 12:54:22 | sean-k-mooney | we do not expect any numa blancing to happen with that config unless you also request hw:mem_page_size in teh falvor or image | |
| 12:58:12 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: so im sorry to say but thet bug is technially inviald and its a psudo feature request. | |
| 13:00:00 | bauzas | but the issue still remains | |
| 13:00:10 | sean-k-mooney | the flavor is not valid | |
| 13:00:39 | sean-k-mooney | we can add supprot for numa blancin on shared cpus only but that was never supproted by nova | |
| 13:00:47 | sean-k-mooney | we supprot it for pinned cpus | |
| 13:00:50 | sean-k-mooney | and for guest memory | |
| 13:01:01 | sean-k-mooney | but not for shared cpus | |
| 13:01:08 | sean-k-mooney | so im not agains supproting that | |
| 13:01:33 | sean-k-mooney | but the expecation today is that we wont consider the cpu allcation ration at the numa node level today | |
| 13:09:51 | bauzas | honestly, I don't know what to say :( | |
| 13:10:31 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: im not agaisnt building thei fucntionlatiy into nova but its really a new feature | |
| 13:11:07 | sean-k-mooney | and if we are to do it we need to do it for spawn and cold migrate and unshleve ectra | |
| 13:12:47 | sean-k-mooney | thisis not the first tirm that i have had this converatoion with operators or custoemrs and pointed out that simply requesting hw:numa_node and nothing else is only vaild if your usign file backed memory as we do not do numa aware shared cpu placement so we will not blance between numa node | |
| 13:13:05 | sean-k-mooney | to be clear even with file backed memory it not a good idea | |
| 13:13:51 | sean-k-mooney | if other really want to tack this as a bug we need to add supprot for this on spwan and other move operaiotn and more fucntional tests to cover that | |
| 13:23:10 | sean-k-mooney | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1792985 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1439247 are relevent context for why the current flavor is invlaid | |
| 13:24:22 | sean-k-mooney | usign file backed memory prevetn the OOM kill but without also susign cpu pinnign it does nto adress the cpu blancing part | |
| 13:24:47 | sean-k-mooney | which is what ye were tryign to address with that new bug | |
| 13:50:12 | opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/nova master: Rename vtpm job and add mtty support for vpgu test https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/922140 | |
| 14:00:02 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2025.1: Add reproducer test for bug 2105896 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/989535 | |
| 15:26:48 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: unrelated to the numa aspect, why is it not right to set self.limits before we call that compute-via-RPC check? it seems that the code expects limits to be set,. | |
| 15:26:58 | dansmith | but I'm not sure when else they would be, but I'm sure I'm missing something | |
| 15:27:46 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: that part isned nessarly wrong but the expecation that nova shoudl blance based on that is. also nova shoudl not be multiplying the core or memory on a given numa node by the ratios | |
| 15:27:55 | Uggla | reminder: upstream meeting in ~30mn | |
| 15:28:45 | sean-k-mooney | well the memofy shoudl not be multipled the cores could be viable | |
| 15:29:36 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: yeah okay I was going to say.. the assumption in the patch being wrong makes sense, not arguing with that | |
| 15:30:06 | dansmith | it just looks to me like in the force case we probably need to be setting self.limits | |