| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-10-17 | |||
| 17:24:39 | dansmith | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/conductor/manager.py#L1110-L1110 | |
| 17:25:03 | mriedem | god what a weird mess | |
| 17:25:11 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 17:25:32 | dansmith | it's also still in the half-uncleaned-up reqspec object | |
| 17:25:42 | dansmith | the only problem is, | |
| 17:25:49 | dansmith | I think numa limits will be per-host, | |
| 17:25:58 | dansmith | although,hmm | |
| 17:26:08 | dansmith | maybe the regular limits won't because of the allocation ratios or something? | |
| 17:26:49 | dansmith | yeah, toast | |
| 17:26:50 | mriedem | we also aren't doing this trick for evacuate | |
| 17:26:51 | dansmith | gdi | |
| 17:27:30 | mriedem | not really sure why we have RequestSpec.limits at all since it's not used anywhere, i guess because RequestSpec was supposed to replace filter_properties | |
| 17:27:48 | dansmith | the thing that goes into limits for things like ramfilter varies per host | |
| 17:27:49 | dansmith | mriedem: yeah, all that is unfinished | |
| 17:28:04 | dansmith | mriedem: so we pass it in reqspec, and as an arg, and now in N alternates | |
| 17:28:21 | dansmith | oh and we pass filter_properties too | |
| 17:28:36 | mriedem | to build_and_run_instance | |
| 17:28:36 | dansmith | so reqspec, filter_properties, limits, and N*selection | |
| 17:28:37 | mriedem | yeah heh | |
| 17:28:46 | dansmith | I wonder if that's enough redundancy | |
| 17:28:58 | mriedem | RAID-4? | |
| 17:29:03 | mriedem | for limits | |
| 17:29:07 | dansmith | this is like raid 50 | |
| 17:29:45 | mriedem | ok yeah so the allocation ratios are per host, | |
| 17:29:49 | mriedem | so the limits are per host | |
| 17:29:55 | mriedem | so they go into the selection object yeah? | |
| 17:30:03 | dansmith | yeah, have to | |
| 17:30:15 | mriedem | and RequestSpec.limits is i guess just the same as the first host chosen | |
| 17:30:38 | dansmith | and filter properties | |
| 17:30:40 | dansmith | and limits | |
| 17:33:00 | mriedem | maybe this is an appropriate time to drop this in here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/499799/ | |
| 17:33:41 | mriedem | removes 5% of the request spec TODOs | |
| 17:43:35 | openstackgerrit | Jackie Truong proposed openstack/nova master: Implement certificate_utils https://review.openstack.org/479949 | |
| 17:46:16 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Send Allocations to spawn https://review.openstack.org/511879 | |
| 17:46:27 | efried | dansmith gibi I think I hit your concerns ^ | |
| 17:59:30 | openstackgerrit | Jackie Truong proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Microversion 2.54 - Add trusted_image_certificates https://review.openstack.org/500396 | |
| 18:08:16 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: fix cleaning up evacuated instances https://review.openstack.org/510938 | |
| 18:09:58 | dansmith | efried: sorry if I wasn't clear, but I don't think adding a whole new fixture just to mock that one thing makes sense, | |
| 18:10:12 | dansmith | I just wanted you to use MonkeyPatch in there instead of mock.start() and addCleanup() | |
| 18:11:17 | dansmith | efried: like this for example: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/unit/virt/test_virt_drivers.py#L96 | |
| 18:22:36 | gregwork | is there a way to pass custom options to qemu via nova ? | |
| 18:22:48 | gregwork | such that when a guest starts up it starts with those extra options | |
| 18:28:17 | artom | gregwork, like literally custom qemu command line options? No. | |
| 18:28:47 | mriedem | artom: do you care about updating this newton change? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/467321/ | |
| 18:29:01 | mriedem | artom: looks like it would need to cherry pick from https://review.openstack.org/#/c/482219/ in ocata | |
| 18:29:21 | mriedem | newton eol is tomorrow | |
| 18:29:31 | artom | mriedem, aha, thanks for the heads up | |
| 18:29:38 | artom | Yeah, lemme do that now | |
| 18:31:48 | efried | dansmith okay. | |
| 18:33:53 | mriedem | dansmith: want to put this in? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/507557/ - the change on stable/ocata is merged, which is what i think tony was waiting for | |
| 18:34:22 | melwitt | mriedem, dansmith: I've got a change up to remove a lot of old quotas code. the only thing I'm not 100% about is the Quotas object methods, I assume they can't be removed until a major version bump. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511689 | |
| 18:34:42 | mriedem | i've got that one starred, hadn't been through it yet though | |
| 18:34:58 | dansmith | mriedem: ack | |
| 18:35:02 | gregwork | artom: im trying to get qemu to spawn the guest with -mem-path /dev/hugetlbfs and -mem-prealloc as per my mellanox dpdk guide | |
| 18:35:04 | mriedem | and yeah i suppose you can't remove the versioned object methods w/o a major bump | |
| 18:35:12 | dansmith | yup | |
| 18:35:24 | melwitt | yeah, I wasn't sure if that's true only for remotables or all | |
| 18:35:24 | dansmith | if they're remotable, that is | |
| 18:35:27 | gregwork | artom: not sure how to pull this off | |
| 18:35:48 | dansmith | melwitt: non-remotables can be removed | |
| 18:35:49 | dansmith | melwitt: you'll know because the hash won't change | |
| 18:36:15 | mriedem | what if the quota engine code behind the remotable object method is removed? | |
| 18:36:16 | melwitt | dansmith: ah, cool. I put TODO remove in 2.0 on all of them but I could straight up remove the non-remotables | |
| 18:36:17 | mriedem | thus breaking it? | |
| 18:36:29 | melwitt | I put pass in | |
| 18:36:30 | artom | gregwork, not really my area of expertise, but what's this mellanox dpdk guide you speak of? | |
| 18:36:43 | mriedem | melwitt: ok | |
| 18:36:44 | dansmith | melwitt: which is only one of them, AFAICT | |
| 18:36:44 | melwitt | but yeah, I guess that would be bad if the other side expected a returned thing so nevermind | |
| 18:37:25 | dansmith | mriedem: yeah, can't break a remotable method, so you can't just gut it, unless gutting it is the proper new behavior or something | |
| 18:37:29 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: libvirt: add check for VIR_DOMAIN_BLOCK_REBASE_COPY_DEV https://review.openstack.org/512406 | |
| 18:37:54 | mriedem | artom: we're going to need ^ if you want to get https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471356/ into newton | |
| 18:37:56 | melwitt | dansmith: hm, so I wondered that, and I thought that's why we might have to keep all of the old quotas code until version 2.0 of the object? | |
| 18:38:10 | dansmith | efried: idk about monkey vs. mock.. I had never seen mockpatch before until you used it | |
| 18:38:22 | artom | mriedem, you mean the thing I said "lemme do that now"? ;) | |
| 18:38:24 | dansmith | melwitt: it just depends on what you're removing | |
| 18:38:29 | mriedem | artom: no, this is different | |
| 18:38:35 | mriedem | artom: another one of your waylaid newton backports | |
| 18:38:56 | artom | But I have so many | |
| 18:39:26 | melwitt | dansmith: for example, the reserve() method passes straight through to the quota engine code and then onto the DB API code. so to prevent breaking the contract, we have to keep all of that no? | |
| 18:39:54 | melwitt | I had thought I could just put "pass" in them. maybe we can since reserve() didn't return anything IIRC | |
| 18:40:07 | dansmith | melwitt: well it depends.. if the side effects of the code are no longer desired, and the older remote can't tell a difference, then it doesn't matter | |
| 18:40:10 | dansmith | that's the point of the isolation | |
| 18:40:31 | dansmith | you're not breaking the contract by changing the behavior of the remotable, only if you change the remotely-visible behavior | |
| 18:40:48 | dansmith | just like we make save() do new things like generate uuids even though older clients don't expect that | |
| 18:40:54 | melwitt | yeah. I'm trying to think if the other side can or can't tell the difference. reserve() currently sets the 'reservations' attribute | |
| 18:40:58 | dansmith | that's the new behavior, we just have to make sure we honor what they're expecting | |
| 18:41:10 | dansmith | but not if NoOp is used right? | |
| 18:41:25 | melwitt | yeah not if NoOp is used | |
| 18:41:37 | artom | mriedem, ah, OK, the rebase thing. So your fix should merge before we merge the backport, which would squash your fix | |
| 18:41:45 | melwitt | so it should already be resilient to that | |
| 18:41:45 | mriedem | artom: yes | |
| 18:41:48 | dansmith | so presumably we can keep the interface stable but neuter the new-side code so it's not doing anything right? | |
| 18:41:50 | artom | Honestly, we can do internal backport to newton, so no massive rush | |
| 18:41:54 | gregwork | artom: http://www.mellanox.com/related-docs/prod_software/MLNX_DPDK_Quick_Start_Guide_v16.11_1.5.pdf | |
| 18:42:04 | artom | But upstream would obviously be appreciated :) | |
| 18:42:12 | gregwork | artom: section 3.2 is the recommended settings for starting a kvm guest | |
| 18:42:18 | melwitt | dansmith: yeah. looks like we can safely do that for any method overloaded by NoOp since NoOp does a pass for those | |
| 18:42:19 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova stable/newton: Catch InstanceNotFound exception https://review.openstack.org/467321 | |
| 18:42:34 | dansmith | melwitt: you'd think yeah | |