| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2026-06-29 | |||
| 16:21:02 | Uggla | tkajinam, antia something you'd like to share ? | |
| 16:21:39 | tkajinam | Uggla, yes | |
| 16:22:36 | tkajinam | so I've created the series of patches for SEV-SNP support and pushes these to gerrit. These can be found in this query https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bp/amd-sev-snp-libvirt-support%22 | |
| 16:23:24 | antia | Small update from me. I spent some time on rebasing with the SNP changes and will keep it up to date with that in the future since it is further along. I also have PTO this week and parts of next week so a small stop in development. | |
| 16:23:43 | tkajinam | I initially planned to address the start up validation part ( https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/994342 ) but eventually decided to create the whole series from scratch because the existing PoC patch needs some amount of rework due to refactoring on top of that validation. | |
| 16:24:11 | tkajinam | gibi already gave initial round of reviews for some of these patches (thanks !) and I appreciate additional eyes on that series | |
| 16:24:23 | mhen | so, tkajinam you are doing these now? during the last PTG LY Corporation said they would implement something asap; I guess that didn't happen? I haven't seen anything from them yet | |
| 16:24:37 | gibi | tkajinam: I looked at most of your series and I'm pretty happy with it. I'm in the process of hunting down some HW downstream to try the patches. | |
| 16:25:00 | gibi | tkajinam: thanks for pushing it forward | |
| 16:25:11 | mhen | either way, I will review these patches asap, tkajinam | |
| 16:25:17 | bauzas | I need to review the patches ditrto | |
| 16:25:41 | tkajinam | mhen, that's my expectation though I didn't see anything from them either. I didn't really want to block TDX work due to it so decided to push the patches from my end for early review | |
| 16:26:02 | tkajinam | mhen, I'll ask hiroki to review/check these, too. I think he's been on conference trip and is supposed to come back online this week. | |
| 16:26:30 | gibi | yeah I suggested antia to rebase the TDX on top of SNP as SNP series was closer to completion and the two series are in merge conflict with each other | |
| 16:26:51 | gibi | I will keep reviewing both SNP and TDX. | |
| 16:26:59 | gibi | antia: thanks for the work on it | |
| 16:27:05 | mhen | I have recent test results with SNP on 2026.1 (after the outsourcing of the QEMU firmware JSON selection to Libvirt and removal from Nova) that indicated some necessary changes and will have a look at your SNP patches accordingly. | |
| 16:27:53 | mhen | tkajinam: thank you for taking over by the way | |
| 16:29:22 | Uggla | I think we are good on this topic, thanks tkajinam and antia! | |
| 16:29:37 | Uggla | #topic Bug scrubbing | |
| 16:29:42 | Uggla | #info up to 94 (+0) | |
| 16:29:49 | Uggla | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-bug-triage-roster | |
| 16:29:55 | Uggla | #link https://truc.uggla.fr/ to follow the trend. | |
| 16:30:02 | Uggla | Next meeting (this week): [public] Upstream bug triage. Wednesday, July 1st · 15:30 – 16:00 UTC. Video call link: meet.google.com/zjr-rxus-hzj | |
| 16:30:05 | dviroel | i would like to quick sync about a LP bug that I filed last week, if possible | |
| 16:30:19 | Uggla | #topic Open discussion | |
| 16:30:32 | Uggla | dviroel please go ahead. | |
| 16:30:36 | dviroel | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2158477 'pinned_az' and 'scheduler_hints' missing from instance.create versioned notifications | |
| 16:30:48 | dviroel | the TL;DR; is that some fields were added to server responses (GET /servers/detail), but not to versioned notifications like instance.create | |
| 16:31:08 | dviroel | and services that consume instance notifications — such as Watcher - have no way to learn about pinned_availability_zone or scheduler_hints from notifications, and need to issue additional REST API calls to retrieve this info | |
| 16:31:13 | dviroel | so | |
| 16:31:19 | dviroel | the question really is: can this be treated as a Bug? Or as Wishlist Bug? | |
| 16:31:47 | dansmith | dviroel: those are request-oriented things | |
| 16:31:54 | dansmith | not really appropriate for instance notifications, IMHO | |
| 16:32:18 | dansmith | or at least, not in the current sense of it | |
| 16:32:40 | dansmith | we'd need to pass those down to the cell which doesn't know about such things just for instance.create, or store them there for instance.update type things, | |
| 16:32:54 | dansmith | or introduce a new notification that is more top-level-oriented in some way | |
| 16:33:32 | gibi | where do we store these? in the request_spec? | |
| 16:33:36 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 16:33:49 | dviroel | yeah | |
| 16:34:25 | dviroel | and recently support for updating pinned_az was also added, which would also mean update in instance.update notif too...] | |
| 16:34:30 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 16:35:00 | gibi | the scheduler.select_destinations.start already exposes some request_spec fields | |
| 16:35:38 | gibi | so we could extend that | |
| 16:35:44 | dansmith | that would work for create but not update | |
| 16:35:50 | gibi | but I'm not sure if that notification is useful for watcher | |
| 16:35:56 | dansmith | unless we added a notification for scheduler.update_request or something | |
| 16:36:24 | dviroel | is not the kind of notification that watcher currently process | |
| 16:37:10 | dviroel | ok, so it seems that isn't straightforward as I was thinking | |
| 16:37:53 | dviroel | which wouldn't fit into a wishlist bug, would require more discussion, is that it? | |
| 16:38:29 | dansmith | I mean, you can still have a wishlist bug, but the actual resolution will be more complicated than just a bugfix | |
| 16:38:37 | dviroel | yeah | |
| 16:38:42 | dansmith | I also don't really think it's a bug anyway, since there's a reason they're not included | |
| 16:38:53 | dansmith | but it's easy to understand from the outside why it looks like a bug, so ... :) | |
| 16:39:43 | dviroel | yeah, for watcher means to issue a api to nova when receiving a instance.create notification... | |
| 16:39:53 | dviroel | which is no desirable | |
| 16:40:05 | dansmith | is that really the case though? | |
| 16:40:20 | dansmith | I guess I'm surprised that you would not be issuing such calls regularly | |
| 16:40:23 | gibi | if this is just for instance.create in watcher then listening to scheduler.select_destinations.start as well could help | |
| 16:40:53 | dviroel | gibi: i will spend some time investigating it, thanks for the tip | |
| 16:41:01 | dansmith | but also, why does watcher need to urgently know about pinned_az? I would expect that would only come into play when acting on (or preparing some) action plan | |
| 16:41:35 | dansmith | is it just that watcher is trying to re-create all the nova state internally from notifications? | |
| 16:42:26 | dviroel | we are trying to build watcher internal cluster database more based in notitications other than many api call to external services | |
| 16:43:01 | dansmith | okay I'm not sure that being able to do that is (or should be) a goal of our notifications and their schema, but still: | |
| 16:43:04 | dviroel | it happens that for big environments, this cost a lot | |
| 16:43:29 | dansmith | does watcher need to know the pinned_az always or only if/when it's deciding on what to do in a particular situation? | |
| 16:44:09 | dviroel | when it selects which server to migrate, it needs to know limitations | |
| 16:44:28 | dviroel | so it is really during audits/strategy algorithym process] | |
| 16:44:31 | dansmith | if it really needs to always know this and thus it has to always poll for that piece of data, then I guess we need to provide it in a notification, but if it's only for the 10% of instances that are being moved in a given plan or something... meh | |
| 16:45:01 | dansmith | yeah, so I guess I would expect it would be more reasonable to patch up the internal state with details like that if/when forming an action plan | |
| 16:45:13 | dviroel | taking a maintanence strategy as example, it will need to check all instances in that node | |
| 16:45:23 | gibi | We currently have instance.update notification wired up in the ovo Instance.save() method. So one can say we add something similar for the RequestSpec ovo as well. But this is spec territory now in my head. | |
| 16:45:26 | dviroel | before planing migrations | |
| 16:45:44 | dansmith | I guess I would expect there are plenty of other things that would affect migrate-ability that aren't included in those, like storage affinity, pci devices that aren't migratable, etc, but maybe not | |
| 16:46:08 | dviroel | there is, and we plan to cover them incrementally | |
| 16:46:18 | dansmith | gibi: yeah that's what I meant by scheduler.update_request .. basically a notification for "this instance's request parameters were updated" | |
| 16:46:23 | dviroel | scheduler hints is one that we could start looking at | |
| 16:47:00 | dviroel | checking other notification is also feasible for watcher | |
| 16:47:02 | dansmith | dviroel: right, so polling the instances on a given node is not a huge undertaking.. if it was every instance ever created always, then that's a big deal, but polling for pinned_az and hints for instances on a node.. seems not so bad | |
| 16:48:07 | dansmith | anyway, probably don't need to do this with an audience, but I think dviroel got the idea and we got some context on why it might be important | |
| 16:48:16 | dviroel | ++ | |
| 16:48:24 | dviroel | ack, thanks for the help | |
| 16:48:51 | dviroel | we can circle back again once I check the other notifications as recommended | |
| 16:48:58 | dviroel | thanks dansmith gibi | |
| 16:49:07 | gibi | cool | |
| 16:49:15 | dviroel | Uggla: i think that is that, thanks | |
| 16:49:16 | dansmith | yep, if the select_destinations thing is workable for you for create, then let's just discuss the update notification add and go that route | |
| 16:49:37 | dviroel | ack | |
| 16:49:38 | Uggla | dviroel good. | |
| 16:50:22 | Uggla | anything else to discuss ? | |
| 16:51:33 | Uggla | if not I guess we are done for today. | |
| 16:51:44 | Uggla | Thanks for joining this meeting. Have a nice day/evening. | |
| 16:51:50 | opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2026/nova.2026-06-29-16.01.log.html | |
| 16:51:50 | opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2026/nova.2026-06-29-16.01.txt | |
| 16:51:50 | opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2026/nova.2026-06-29-16.01.html | |
| 16:51:50 | opendevmeet | Meeting ended Mon Jun 29 16:51:50 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 16:51:50 | Uggla | #endmeeting | |
| 16:51:56 | lajoskatona | o/ | |
| 16:52:00 | elodilles | thanks Uggla o/ | |
| 16:52:02 | tkajinam | thanks | |