| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-10-24 | |||
| 17:34:11 | bauzas | for that consumer ID ? | |
| 17:34:16 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 17:34:21 | bauzas | all good then | |
| 17:34:38 | bauzas | now I wonder one thing tho | |
| 17:34:56 | bauzas | say we now have the inventory reporting VGPUs | |
| 17:35:15 | bauzas | if the flavor goes asking for that, does placement magically create allocation for that RC ? | |
| 17:35:19 | bauzas | dansmith: ^ | |
| 17:35:28 | bauzas | I tend to do so, but I need confirmation | |
| 17:35:29 | dansmith | well, | |
| 17:35:35 | dansmith | placement doesn't create an allocation, no, | |
| 17:35:40 | bauzas | sorry | |
| 17:35:42 | dansmith | but it returns an allocation candidate with that init, | |
| 17:35:43 | bauzas | the claim I mean | |
| 17:35:53 | dansmith | and then scheduler will try to create an allocation from it yeah | |
| 17:36:04 | dansmith | so you should have an allocation for a vgpu when you get to spawn | |
| 17:36:12 | bauzas | *will* means I need to code ? | |
| 17:36:24 | dansmith | no, will means it will happen if it's in the flavor | |
| 17:36:31 | bauzas | oh, snap | |
| 17:36:34 | bauzas | yeah I remember | |
| 17:36:48 | bauzas | hence the scheduler.utils method that gives you the resource classes | |
| 17:37:09 | bauzas | anyway, I have a devstack, I can give it a try | |
| 17:39:11 | dansmith | good progress, thanks! | |
| 18:28:49 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add FlavorPayload.description for versioned notifications https://review.openstack.org/514782 | |
| 18:30:33 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: xenapi: cached images should be cleaned up by time https://review.openstack.org/465954 | |
| 18:33:52 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make live migration hold resources with a migration allocation https://review.openstack.org/507638 | |
| 18:39:31 | openstackgerrit | Eric Berglund proposed openstack/nova master: PowerVM Driver: config drive https://review.openstack.org/409404 | |
| 18:57:24 | efried | dansmith cdent edleafe You know how we've been searching for a name for the RP that's not a sharing RP? Today it's the "compute node RP" but we need a more generic name. And some have been calling it the "root RP" but that's overloading from nested. | |
| 18:57:32 | efried | So what about "anchor"? | |
| 18:57:47 | edleafe | We're sunk if we use that | |
| 18:57:54 | efried | Hah! | |
| 19:01:57 | cdent | efried: what about target? | |
| 19:02:25 | edleafe | "base"? | |
| 19:02:37 | dansmith | I didn't know we were searching for a name | |
| 19:02:48 | efried | dansmith What have you been calling it? | |
| 19:02:59 | cdent | dansmith: it’s come up on some of the reviews that include changes to shared related stuff | |
| 19:03:19 | cdent | and on some of those “root” was used, but that’s overloaded | |
| 19:03:23 | dansmith | efried: I don't know that I have.. but probably "compute node rp" | |
| 19:03:43 | cdent | dansmith: a bit specific, no? | |
| 19:04:06 | efried | Right, we'll be wanting to move away from that long term. | |
| 19:04:07 | cdent | presumably there could be a situation where a compute node isn’t involved? | |
| 19:04:07 | dansmith | well, I haven't really needed to refer to anything other than a compute node | |
| 19:04:07 | edleafe | "radicle" is similar to root | |
| 19:04:22 | edleafe | That'll get the dictionaries dusted off | |
| 19:04:25 | dansmith | I guess I'm missing the need for a name | |
| 19:04:25 | efried | edleafe Far out. | |
| 19:05:00 | efried | dansmith Generically in placement, it's not always a compute node. Or at least, we want to code up placement so that's the case. At least that's what I thought the vision was. | |
| 19:05:22 | dansmith | sure, I'm just saying I don't think I've had a need to refer to this distinction | |
| 19:05:34 | dansmith | like, I'd call it "RP" and "Sharing RP" I guess | |
| 19:05:42 | dansmith | and prefix it with "compute node" when I'm talking about that | |
| 19:05:44 | dansmith | because, you know, | |
| 19:05:54 | dansmith | it's possible that a compute node would be a sharing one :) | |
| 19:07:18 | cdent | dansmith: if you want some context, patchset 6 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/480379/ | |
| 19:09:12 | cdent | see yas | |
| 19:09:20 | dansmith | the three sentences you wrote on that PS? | |
| 19:09:22 | dansmith | oh well | |
| 19:11:00 | efried | dansmith Not the only time it has come up, though. I just hit it again: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/514199/2/nova/objects/resource_provider.py@2459 | |
| 19:11:29 | dansmith | right there it calls it a sharing provider, right? | |
| 19:12:11 | dansmith | or you're complaining about "root providers" I guess | |
| 19:12:40 | dansmith | how about "selfish providers" :P | |
| 19:12:59 | edleafe | dansmith: I already suggested that :) | |
| 19:13:10 | dansmith | they're all providers, some are sharing, so it seems like that's the distinction | |
| 19:13:22 | dansmith | edleafe: oh sorry | |
| 19:14:41 | edleafe | heehee | |
| 19:15:44 | openstackgerrit | Eric Berglund proposed openstack/nova master: PowerVM Driver: config drive https://review.openstack.org/409404 | |
| 19:17:19 | efried | edleafe dansmith https://doodle.com/poll/9fkqidtfzwh7y9tr | |
| 19:18:32 | efried | Added "selfish". | |
| 19:18:42 | edleafe | voted for "selfish" | |
| 19:18:48 | edleafe | 'cause I'm selfish | |
| 19:20:00 | dansmith | why is "compute node" even in there? | |
| 19:20:57 | efried | dansmith You seemed attached to it :) | |
| 19:21:19 | dansmith | huh? I said that in my referring to it, I was always referring to an actual compute node and thus had no need for another term | |
| 19:21:32 | dansmith | obviously we wouldn't want to call it a compute node in placementy code | |
| 19:21:57 | efried | Okay, I'm good with that. It wasn't clear from your discourse above. I'll remove 'root' too. | |
| 19:22:22 | dansmith | efried: [12:04:06] <dansmith>well, I haven't really needed to refer to anything other than a compute node | |
| 19:22:29 | edleafe | You don't have to remove them. | |
| 19:22:37 | efried | too late | |
| 19:22:38 | edleafe | Just don't vote for them | |
| 19:22:59 | dansmith | we're not going to call it compute node, so unless edleafe just wants to trap flies, it might as well not be there :) | |
| 19:23:11 | edleafe | if you put "doughnut" in there I wouldn't mind, I just wouldn't vote for it | |
| 19:23:14 | efried | I was trying to figure out a way to settle on something without bikeshedding | |
| 19:23:22 | efried | Now we're bikeshedding about the poll itself. | |
| 19:23:26 | efried | Meta-bikeshedding. | |
| 19:39:51 | mriedem | dansmith: ok https://review.openstack.org/#/c/506420/ | |
| 19:42:43 | dansmith | mriedem: so, let me tell you why some of that is the way it is | |
| 19:42:52 | dansmith | you're going to tell me to clean it up | |
| 19:43:11 | dansmith | but, it's because in the next patch I move this out of the actual task and share it from live migration | |
| 19:43:24 | dansmith | any time I change something here it causes the next patch to conflict out like a mofo | |
| 19:43:34 | dansmith | so I've just been trying to avoid a big refactor | |
| 19:43:45 | dansmith | but I guess that's just not gonna fly | |
| 19:44:28 | mriedem | i hadn't powered ahead | |
| 19:44:33 | mriedem | i gave it my all on this one | |
| 19:44:44 | dansmith | yeah, I know | |
| 19:44:54 | dansmith | I'm just really burned out on this | |
| 19:45:32 | mriedem | couldn't we do a patch in between that handles the refactor to move it into a utils? | |
| 19:45:56 | mriedem | that's what i did when i moved the force=true claim in conductor stuff to scheduler_utils so evacuate and live migration could both use that | |
| 19:46:12 | dansmith | I should just squash out the refactor into this one since it adds stuff and then just removes it | |
| 19:46:33 | dansmith | I don't think there's any reason not to have it in one of the tasks, it just has to be accessible | |
| 19:46:51 | mriedem | i put that other thing here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/91f436d6c095573594f660438fe2c72e721d97ce/nova/scheduler/utils.py#L222 | |
| 19:46:57 | mriedem | but sure, it could live in the migrate task | |
| 19:47:14 | mriedem | we kind of end up with this allocationy utility stuff everywhere though | |