Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-04-24
12:15:31 sean-k-mooney kashyap: yes
12:16:07 kashyap sean-k-mooney: Any other preferences that you "can't live without"?
12:16:19 kashyap Maybe I'm "missing out" something
12:16:25 kashyap cdent: Noted
12:16:25 sean-k-mooney kashyap: not that come to mind
12:16:31 kashyap Cool; thanks
12:18:13 sean-k-mooney kashyap: if we ever update the openstack gerrit to support polygerrit ui then that should solve this permently but im sure that has its own bugs
12:18:18 jaypipes kashyap: oh, I'm pretty sure you're missing out on lots of things :P
12:18:50 kashyap jaypipes: I just maintain my sanity (from Gerrit) by spending a portion of time on mailing list based projects :P
12:18:56 kashyap sean-k-mooney: What does "polygerrit" do?
12:19:42 jaypipes kashyap: it's gerrit that simply repeats stuff back to you.
12:19:51 jaypipes kashyap: oh wait, no, that's PollyGerrit.
12:20:20 sean-k-mooney kashyap: its a complete reimplementaiton of the entire gerrit ui in plomer.js and html5 so no more java/gwt
12:20:35 kashyap Unrelated "taste" question -- is it bad taste to write a small clarifying comment in a unit test?
12:20:38 kashyap E.g.:
12:20:40 kashyap + # For 'host-model', it is now valid to use 'extra_flags';
12:20:43 kashyap + # so warning should not be thrown
12:20:45 kashyap + self.assertFalse(mock_warn.called)
12:20:54 jaypipes kashyap: that is good taste, IMHO.
12:20:55 kashyap There are multiple unit tests, but the "asserts" won't speak for themselves, if you're not reading code carefully around
12:21:19 kashyap jaypipes: Thanks. It is subtle, and this helps. So I'll add it in
12:21:42 kashyap sean-k-mooney: My single biggest feature request is: if I can reply from Gerrit mail, that'll solve "everything" for me with Gerrit
12:21:46 sean-k-mooney kashyap: the only time i would consider that bad taste is if it is done instead of splitting a test that is too complex. adding comments to explain clearly what your testing is good
12:21:58 kashyap As long as I don't have to deal with the clickety-clicky, RSI-inducing GUI
12:22:33 kashyap sean-k-mooney: Good point; I did split the test. I'm lifting the restriction we added here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1766208
12:22:33 openstack Launchpad bug 1766208 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Lift the restriction on choices for `cpu_model_extra_flags` config attribute" [Undecided,New] - Assigned to Kashyap Chamarthy (kashyapc)
12:22:42 sean-k-mooney kashyap: if openstack had an email only interface it would never work on it again. but if email via gerrit work then that would be cool
12:23:02 kashyap In the earlier patch, for 'host-model' it was invalid to specify 'extra_flags'. But now we allow it (as it is valid libvirt form)
12:23:23 kashyap sean-k-mooney: s/"it would"/I would/ ?
12:23:37 sean-k-mooney ah the restiction we added for backporting
12:24:54 sean-k-mooney ya i think being able to extend host-model makes sense. it was just one extra vairible that we did not want to backport originally so i dont think that bug is controverial
12:25:46 kashyap sean-k-mooney: Yeah, now I'm lifting that
12:26:18 sean-k-mooney kashyap: it is technically a feature not a bug but even a specless blueprint seams to heavy for that so bug makes sense
12:26:18 kashyap git diff --cached
12:26:22 kashyap Wrong window
12:26:30 kashyap sean-k-mooney: Yep
12:26:40 sean-k-mooney kashyap: password: :)
12:26:48 kashyap Heh
12:30:49 openstackgerrit Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Lift the restriction of choices for `cpu_model_extra_flags` https://review.openstack.org/563926
12:31:09 kashyap sean-k-mooney: ^ When you can, mind having a gander?
12:31:40 kashyap (Pinged you explicitly as you have context from the prior patch.)
12:31:57 sean-k-mooney kashyap: ill be away for like 20 mins or so but i have it open in a tab for when i get back
12:32:11 kashyap Thanks!
12:35:50 bhagyashris efried; Hi, I just want to discuss regarding the zuul failure on patches https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560444/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560459/ . I have some observations; 1. Yesterday I had list down the test which are failing on both the patches [1][2] and then put the recheck in morning and checked wheather the same test are failing or not but I saw that the different tests are failing
12:36:12 efried bhagyashris: Unit or functional?
12:36:17 bhagyashris efried: Most of the test are failing with the error like (No valid host is found and Server <id> failed to build and is in ERROR status) so it seems that the host is not return properly from scheduler side.
12:36:36 efried oh, tempest
12:36:39 bhagyashris efried: tempest-full, tempest-full-py3 etc
12:36:48 efried Have you looked into the compute logs?
12:37:21 bhagyashris efried: I have checked the n-sch logs #link: http://logs.openstack.org/59/560459/3/check/tempest-full/b9c97a9/controller/logs/screen-n-sch.txt.gz#_Apr_24_06_52_41_192819
12:38:31 bhagyashris efried: and it shows that the get_alocation_candidates() at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L148 is returning the empty list
12:41:14 bhagyashris efried: As n-sch is not returning the host and our patch has changes at n-cpu side so I am not getting where exactly it's failing?
12:44:03 efried bhagyashris: http://logs.openstack.org/59/560459/3/check/tempest-full/b9c97a9/controller/logs/screen-placement-api.txt.gz#_Apr_24_06_52_41_190125
12:44:31 efried bhagyashris: But requests before that are succeeding. It's like the host is running out of resources. This could be an allocation ratio thing.
12:44:41 bhagyashris efried: I have debug the tempest test tempest.api.compute.servers.test_multiple_create.MultipleCreateTestJSON.test_multiple_create on patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560459/ and observed that the allocation_candidates() return at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L148 is empty list and same test i have ran on master there the allocation_candidates() return is successfully
12:47:02 bhagyashris efried: sorry i am getting fully . Means we will need some changes at placement side to fix the failing tests on zuul
12:48:40 efried bhagyashris: We definitely shouldn't need placement changes, no.
12:49:16 efried bhagyashris: You say you have a way to step through the tempest test and reproduce the failure?
12:49:47 efried bhagyashris: And presumably you would be able to step through that same test in an environment that did *not* include the patches in question (i.e. from the tip of the master branch)?
12:50:32 efried bhagyashris: So what we should do is query placement for the inventory records right before the meat of the test is run.
12:50:44 efried bhagyashris: They should be the *same* with or without our patch.
12:54:28 bhagyashris efried: I am not clear what will need to fix this
12:55:28 bhagyashris efried: As the same test are passing on master and our patches are not making any change at placement or n-sch side
12:56:40 efried bhagyashris: I am also not clear what is needed to fix this, which is why I suggested the above to debug. If we can demonstrate that the inventories in placement are different between master and our patch, then we've done something wrong with the transition from get_inventory to update_provider_tree.
12:56:59 efried bhagyashris: But if they're the same... then we need to look somewhere else (not sure where).
12:57:37 bhagyashris efried: ohh ok
12:58:02 efried bhagyashris: The tests fail the same way with the bottom patch as with the top, right?
12:58:10 efried So the problem isn't with our conditional DISK_GB thing.
12:58:21 efried It's with the translation from get_inventory to update_provider_tree.
12:58:34 efried Could be in the resource tracker.
12:58:39 efried or in the report client.
13:00:15 bhagyashris efried: just checked on both the patches different test are failing
13:01:40 efried bhagyashris: If we're reporting the inventory wrong, it could mean that we're running out of capacity sooner than we used to. But the tempest tests run in parallel in zuul. So which test runs out of capacity first could vary from one run to another.
13:01:56 bhagyashris on parent patch the tempest-full 2 test are failing and on child patch tempest-full 7 tests are failing
13:02:22 efried Let's just focus on the first patch compared to master.
13:03:15 efried bhagyashris: You said you were able to reproduce the failure manually?
13:03:34 bhagyashris efried: no
13:04:37 bhagyashris efried: I have debugged tempest test tempest.api.compute.servers.test_multiple_create.MultipleCreateTestJSON.test_multiple_create on patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560459/ and observed that the allocation_candidates() return at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L148 is empty list and same test i have ran on master there the allocation_candidates() return is successfully
13:06:10 efried bhagyashris: What do you mean by "debugged" then - you mean just looking at logs?
13:07:53 bhagyashris efried: I mean I have put pdb at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L121 and ran the tempest test using the tox -e py27 tempest test tempest.api.compute.servers.test_multiple_create.MultipleCreateTestJSON.test_multiple_create
13:08:20 efried bhagyashris: And you were able to reproduce the fact that GET /allocation_candidates returns no results?
13:08:25 efried ...with our patch
13:08:32 efried ...but on master it returns good results?
13:08:50 bhagyashris efried: yes
13:09:24 efried bhagyashris: Okay, so what I'm asking is for you to do the exact same thing, but when you hit your breakpoint, manually query the placement API and pull back the inventories and allocations for the compute host.
13:10:07 efried bhagyashris: If you do that for both environments - one with our patch and one with master - we should be able to determine whether those inventories/allocations are the same or different.
13:10:39 efried bhagyashris: I'm especially interested in whether the total, reserved, and allocation ratio match; and whether the allocations match.
13:19:22 openstackgerrit Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Lift the restriction of choices for `cpu_model_extra_flags` https://review.openstack.org/563926
13:19:23 openstackgerrit Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: Do-Not-Merge: Test multiple CPU flags https://review.openstack.org/563948
13:42:35 openstackgerrit Julia Kreger proposed openstack/nova master: Ironic: Lock the instance if early vif plug https://review.openstack.org/563714
13:51:03 openstackgerrit Jens Harbott (frickler) proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Test devstack + ceph plugin patches https://review.openstack.org/563097
13:51:14 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix dropped check for boot_index 0 in _validate_bdm https://review.openstack.org/563732
14:01:35 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: Improve performance when list instances with IP filter https://review.openstack.org/563972
14:26:32 mriedem stephenfin: can https://review.openstack.org/#/c/541290/ be updated now?
14:27:19 stephenfin mriedem: Sure. I was working through PoC to make sure the idea worked and it does. I'll update the spec pronto
14:27:32 stephenfin *a PoC
14:27:45 mriedem cool, thanks
14:28:28 openstackgerrit Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Drop MIN_LIBVIRT_BLOCK_LM_WITH_VOLUMES_VERSION https://review.openstack.org/563984
14:33:22 mriedem johnthetubaguy_: can you go over https://review.openstack.org/#/c/552078/ again since i've updated it?
14:37:26 esberglu mriedem: Thoughts on my last comment here? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/526094/45/nova/virt/powervm/driver.py@559

Earlier   Later