| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-04-11 | |||
| 15:33:22 | jaypipes | do the right thign? | |
| 15:33:29 | efried | yes | |
| 15:33:33 | jaypipes | you kids... | |
| 15:33:56 | jaypipes | efried, bhagyashris: ok, cool. that's kind of exactly what I expected. :) | |
| 15:35:53 | efried | jaypipes: Now somebody ought to finish up the tests on those patches and put 'em to bed. | |
| 15:42:43 | jaypipes | bauzas: you realize that https://devblogs.nvidia.com/performance-portability-gpus-cpus-openacc/ is not talking about CPU and GPU sharing memory, right? | |
| 15:42:56 | bauzas | right | |
| 15:43:04 | bauzas | it's about portability | |
| 15:43:28 | bauzas | memory isn't shared on a SOC for a nvidia card | |
| 15:43:44 | bauzas | so you're right, that's a separate memory map | |
| 15:44:57 | jaypipes | bauzas: you wrote "I have many internal customers that are actually very interested in having NUMA affinity for having the GPU memory close as possible to the NUMA memory controller used by the virtual CPU" <-- that is just not the case. | |
| 15:45:17 | jaypipes | bauzas: either that, or your internal customers don't actually know what they're asking for. | |
| 15:45:45 | bauzas | jaypipes: I can certainly ask them for clarification about their needs | |
| 15:46:15 | jaypipes | bauzas: in any case, that wasn't the reason for the -1 :) was just mentioning the use case could have been tighter. | |
| 15:46:40 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove RequestContext.instance_lock_checked https://review.openstack.org/554378 | |
| 15:47:32 | bauzas | jaypipes: yeah, no worries, I got it | |
| 15:47:43 | bauzas | jaypipes: and tbh, I appreciate you challenging me on the need | |
| 15:47:57 | bauzas | because it helps me understand why my customers are pushing for it | |
| 15:48:18 | bauzas | instead of just be a typey typey box | |
| 15:49:34 | jaypipes | bauzas: yeah, the checkboxy thing is a big problem. | |
| 15:55:11 | mriedem | mikal: i'm sure this pains you, but apparently the nova-net refactoring broke nova-lxd https://review.openstack.org/#/c/559190/ which apparently also broke openstack-ansible https://review.openstack.org/#/c/559354/ | |
| 15:55:13 | mriedem | :( | |
| 15:57:11 | jaypipes | tssurya: you need any assistance on writing the func test asked for by dansmith on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/554920/? | |
| 15:57:39 | melwitt | dansmith: for the runways end dates, were you thinking they include the end date? that is, would we remove things *on* the end date or the day after? I was thinking the day after | |
| 15:57:54 | tssurya | jaypipes: I have been working on it for sometime with not much luck | |
| 15:58:04 | dansmith | melwitt: shrug, probably EOD on the day yeah | |
| 15:58:05 | dansmith | which is today I know | |
| 15:58:10 | jaypipes | tssurya: feel free to push what you've got and I can help out. | |
| 15:58:14 | tssurya | jaypipes : so if you have some time, help appreciated | |
| 15:58:18 | jaypipes | np | |
| 15:58:37 | melwitt | dansmith: yeah, okay. I was thinking similar, that the end date should include that day. I'll move things after EOD | |
| 15:58:55 | dansmith | melwitt: your EOD is pretty late, so I think that'll work nice | |
| 15:59:04 | melwitt | agreed | |
| 16:09:32 | mriedem | ooo i broke nova-lxd too https://review.openstack.org/#/q/I751fcb7532679905c4279744919c6cce84a11eb4 | |
| 16:10:44 | mriedem | odyssey4me: that's awesome that nova can unwittingly break nova-lxd and other out of tree virt drivers, which then in turn breaks OSA | |
| 16:11:10 | mriedem | odyssey4me: i'm sort of surprised that OSA's voting jobs don't exclude out of tree drivers | |
| 16:11:15 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: isnt there a thirdpart ci for nova-lxd | |
| 16:11:26 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: no, nova-lxd is not in tree | |
| 16:12:17 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: yes but i would have expected there to be a non gating thrid party ci to test it even when its out of tree | |
| 16:12:33 | mriedem | why would we care? | |
| 16:12:45 | mriedem | if you're out of tree, you're out of tree, and we don't block in-tree changes because of that | |
| 16:12:57 | mriedem | best we do at times is put something in the ML as a heads up for known internal interface changes | |
| 16:14:55 | bauzas | that remembers me some pg discussion... | |
| 16:14:58 | sean-k-mooney | not run by nova run by the maintiners of nova-lxd e.g. canonical | |
| 16:15:17 | bauzas | which I think we cleary made the statement that non-supported things for a project are potentially subject to break | |
| 16:15:32 | mriedem | bauzas: we have jobs we can run for pg testing if we ant | |
| 16:15:33 | mriedem | *want | |
| 16:15:34 | bauzas | hence other projects gating on that project shouldn't really support that too | |
| 16:15:36 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: oh im not expecting nova to block in tree change i just expcting that nova-lxd team could benifit form know that its broken | |
| 16:15:39 | mriedem | there is a neutron job in the experimental queue that runs with pg | |
| 16:16:09 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: nova-lxd team can listen on nova changes, run jobs and post results for failures somewhere if they want to detect them early | |
| 16:17:06 | bauzas | mriedem: I'm not saying it's impossible | |
| 16:17:16 | bauzas | mriedem: just that we broke ceilometer once | |
| 16:17:36 | bauzas | because ceilo was gating something we don't test | |
| 16:17:44 | mriedem | sure, i'm sure ceilometer broke us once indirectly too when they were part of tempest, 3 years ago | |
| 16:18:14 | bauzas | and the result was like a best-effort fix and a summit discussion that led to "come and help us make pg first-grade if your production runs on something we don't test" | |
| 16:18:34 | mriedem | there is nothing 2nd grade about pg wrt nova | |
| 16:18:51 | bauzas | I think we're diverting anyway | |
| 16:19:18 | bauzas | I just tried to explain that I feel you shouldn't blame yourself for breaking ansible if they gate on something we don't test | |
| 16:19:26 | dansmith | mriedem: this seems like a legit "stop the bleeding" patch for stable.. I saw you reviewed it once, but.. are you cool with it? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543569 | |
| 16:19:34 | bauzas | we can certainly fix that tho | |
| 16:19:37 | mriedem | bauzas: i don't really blame myself :) | |
| 16:19:41 | sahid | mriedem: if you have a moment that one looks ready and important enough for some use-cases https://review.openstack.org/#/c/553072/ | |
| 16:19:44 | mriedem | sucks for odyssey4me though | |
| 16:20:05 | mriedem | jesus, did the red hat team bug meeting just end? | |
| 16:20:05 | bauzas | mriedem: I agree, and that requires a fix | |
| 16:20:22 | bauzas | mriedem: nah, not bugs | |
| 16:20:35 | bauzas | but yes, meeting ended | |
| 16:21:23 | mriedem | dansmith: i've just been putting off going through it again because it's hairy on stable | |
| 16:21:31 | mriedem | i'm not opposed to it no | |
| 16:21:33 | dansmith | it's big, | |
| 16:21:37 | dansmith | but it doesn't seem that hairy | |
| 16:21:56 | mriedem | the fact it was re-introducing a regression in the earlier PS indicates to me it's hairy | |
| 16:22:05 | dansmith | it's checking a thing and raising an exception to avoid you killing data puppies | |
| 16:22:29 | dansmith | okay I guess I don't quite know what that means | |
| 16:22:55 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543569/1/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py@1216 | |
| 16:23:03 | mriedem | meaning it's easy to break stuff | |
| 16:23:34 | dansmith | ah I see | |
| 16:23:42 | mriedem | anyway, i told lyarwood i'd go through it again last week and forgot | |
| 16:23:44 | dansmith | weyall.. data corruption seems more bad | |
| 16:23:55 | mriedem | and with no more eol, we have time to fix it if breaks something | |
| 16:24:16 | dansmith | by "time" you mean "forever and ever" right? | |
| 16:24:31 | odyssey4me | mriedem eh? what sucks for me? :) | |
| 16:35:06 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: move version to string in utils https://review.openstack.org/560455 | |
| 16:35:38 | mriedem | dansmith: i'll trade you https://review.openstack.org/#/c/536722/ | |
| 16:36:08 | dansmith | mriedem: seems a little lopsided | |
| 16:39:33 | mriedem | sahid: comments inline | |
| 16:41:43 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Expose shutdown retry interval as config setting https://review.openstack.org/552483 | |
| 16:44:26 | dansmith | mriedem: you okay with this? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/484997/14/nova/conf/libvirt.py | |
| 16:44:42 | dansmith | I suggested something similar, but not exactly this.. although this works and is easier than what I suggested | |
| 16:44:54 | dansmith | it gets us config load-time verification of that parameter | |
| 16:44:57 | dansmith | instead of at runtime | |
| 16:45:12 | dansmith | but I don't think we have anywhere else that we subclass an opt (even though that's suggested by the oslo docs AFAICT) | |
| 16:45:46 | mriedem | you just pulled me out of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543569/ | |
| 16:46:05 | dansmith | it needs only a glance | |
| 16:46:22 | mriedem | so does https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560454/ | |
| 16:47:18 | mriedem | agree with load-time config validation | |
| 16:47:44 | mriedem | wouldn't it be simple to do a subclass inline in that module | |
| 16:47:45 | mriedem | ? | |
| 16:49:05 | dansmith | mriedem: wrong link? | |