| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-04-27 | |||
| 12:47:24 | sean-k-mooney | ya i guess in current climate they can sometimes be in poor taste | |
| 12:47:25 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: If you have a preferred wording, please note in the review | |
| 12:48:22 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: well im conflited on that as personaly i consider it to be a kvm/kernel bug so nova should not have to tell you about it. | |
| 12:48:28 | kashyap | Yeah | |
| 12:48:37 | kashyap | Probably let's not confuse | |
| 12:48:51 | kashyap | The help text for that already requires undivided attention to read and apply it properly | |
| 12:49:12 | kashyap | We'll get to it when we get the first bug filed in that area | |
| 12:49:54 | sean-k-mooney | the old example of what used to trigger it was adding AVX on a cpu that did not have it caused a fallback to sse4 instruction in qemu but that fallback was buggy when used with kvm and nested virt turned on | |
| 12:50:33 | sean-k-mooney | i think that has been fix however. | |
| 12:51:56 | kashyap | Aside: What does AVX do? | |
| 12:52:15 | kashyap | Ah, found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions | |
| 12:53:28 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: yep its basicaly extra wide simd instructions. which is why you can emulate them with sse instrutions at a performace penalty but still better then not using avx at all | |
| 12:54:00 | kashyap | I see, thanks for the explanation | |
| 13:00:13 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: out of interest does cpu model Haswell-noTSX-IBRS have meltdown/specter fixed | |
| 13:01:26 | sean-k-mooney | the fact that its IBRS and not noIBRS implies it doing speclitive execution | |
| 13:11:50 | mdbooth | jgriffith: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1767363 | |
| 13:11:50 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1767363 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Deleting 2 instances with a common multi-attached volume can leave the volume attached" [Undecided,New] | |
| 13:12:20 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Was AFK briefly | |
| 13:12:35 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Yes, and no | |
| 13:13:19 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: yes to meltdown and not to specter because qemu/kvm/kernel is patch to prevent that? | |
| 13:13:35 | kashyap | Exactly | |
| 13:14:05 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: cool then IBRS makes sense | |
| 13:14:07 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: And more over: those -noIBRS models _doesn't_ include 'PCID' (some got confused) | |
| 13:16:01 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: right well i guess it you dont do speculatve branch execution then you dont need pcid to create seperate user/kernel adress contextes in the guest to mitigate the security risk | |
| 13:16:43 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Hmm, didn't think that way; that's a good point. | |
| 13:23:26 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Sure is. I tested on an AIO DevStack deployment with OVS and things get shunted to the correct NUMA node | |
| 13:23:43 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: cool | |
| 13:25:30 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Lift the restriction of choices for `cpu_model_extra_flags` https://review.openstack.org/563926 | |
| 13:30:34 | sean-k-mooney | finucannot: did you see my comment on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/564439/1 | |
| 13:31:16 | kashyap | mriedem: Nice of you to fix the nits yourself | |
| 13:31:21 | sean-k-mooney | finucannot: also cool i might see if i can test it with ovs-dpdk but it will be next week at the earliest before i do | |
| 13:33:07 | finucannot | sean-k-mooney: That would be great. I was planning to do that myself. I also want to do some multi-host testing (to properly validate the scheduler aspects of things) though live migration is off the cards, seeing as this requires CPU pinning | |
| 13:33:49 | finucannot | sean-k-mooney: Question though: both you and jaypipes keep using the term "network backend". What do mean? | |
| 13:33:57 | finucannot | e.g. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/564439/1/nova/objects/numa.py@164 | |
| 13:35:21 | sean-k-mooney | finucannot: when i was using "network backend" i was referning to ovs vs linux bridge vs vpp vs sriov ... | |
| 13:35:29 | leakypipes | bauzas: so I've yet to see a single operator respond with a custom scheduler filter being used in the openstack-operators survey on scheduler filters. | |
| 13:35:50 | finucannot | sean-k-mooney: So neutron agents? | |
| 13:36:08 | sean-k-mooney | finucannot: so neutron can only have one tunnel enpoint ip for the ovs agent but if you also ran linux bridge on the host it could have a different one | |
| 13:36:13 | sean-k-mooney | finucannot: ya basically | |
| 13:36:22 | bauzas | leakypipes: maybe they're shy ? :p | |
| 13:38:41 | finucannot | sean-k-mooney: Yeah, I think we need to settle on terminology here. So to start, we've got neutron agents. Theoretically you can run many of these on one host but we're going to consider that out of scope here, I guess | |
| 13:39:13 | sean-k-mooney | finucannot: normally you will have sriov + one other maxium per host | |
| 13:40:20 | sean-k-mooney | finucannot: you can have more but gernally running more then two agent does not by you anything usefull and is a pain to mainatin | |
| 13:43:20 | sean-k-mooney | leakypipes: there were a few responces on the openstack-dev thread but ya i guess either operators dont want to share or have not seen it | |
| 13:44:57 | sean-k-mooney | leakypipes: looking at the responces only the AggregateInstanceExtraSpecsFilter and AggregateImagePropertiesIsolation need complex metadata stored on the host aggreates which cant be offloaded to placement | |
| 13:45:27 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter. | |
| 13:46:04 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: the AggregateInstanceExtraSpecsFilter and AggregateImagePropertiesIsolation stuff will be handled fully by superdan's placement-request-filter work. | |
| 13:46:19 | superdan | um | |
| 13:46:21 | superdan | fully? | |
| 13:46:26 | leakypipes | FULLY! | |
| 13:46:31 | leakypipes | because... superdan. | |
| 13:46:46 | sean-k-mooney | leakypipes: hum i assumed that we would be able to modle the compute capablities could be handeled by traits on the compute node RP but i admit i have not looked at what that does in a while | |
| 13:47:27 | superdan | the former is what you use for general flavor-to-aggregate mapping right? | |
| 13:47:27 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: it is this ludicrousness that is problematic to "port" to placement: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filters/compute_capabilities_filter.py#L49-L56 | |
| 13:47:46 | leakypipes | superdan: yes. and the latter is tenant to aggregate mapping | |
| 13:48:05 | superdan | leakypipes: no, the latter is for image-based mapping | |
| 13:48:15 | superdan | leakypipes: there is a dedicated tenant filter for tenant-to-aggregate | |
| 13:48:28 | leakypipes | superdan: ack, apologies, yep. | |
| 13:48:48 | leakypipes | superdan: IsolatedHostsFilter? | |
| 13:49:02 | leakypipes | nope, that's the image one too | |
| 13:49:13 | sean-k-mooney | leakypipes: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filters/aggregate_multitenancy_isolation.py | |
| 13:49:13 | leakypipes | AggregateMultiTenancyIsolation | |
| 13:49:15 | leakypipes | :0 | |
| 13:49:24 | superdan | right, that's the tenant one | |
| 13:49:25 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: just beat ya. :) | |
| 13:49:59 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: also, see this craziness here: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filters/compute_capabilities_filter.py#L76-L107 | |
| 13:50:10 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: there's not a chance that will be ported as a placement filter. | |
| 13:51:29 | sean-k-mooney | leakypipes: perhaps port is the wrong word. i think many of the usecase that this was used for can be supported with placement with out all the extra spec hardcodeing that was dont in that filter | |
| 13:52:59 | sean-k-mooney | however bad the compute_capablities_filter looks however the json filter is 10 times worse https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filters/json_filter.py | |
| 13:53:08 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: yep. | |
| 13:53:19 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: luckily I have yet to see anyone say they are using it. | |
| 13:54:11 | sean-k-mooney | out of interest is there a policy on deprecating filters over time | |
| 13:55:58 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: well, as soon as the filter becomes redundant, we want to deprecate it. | |
| 13:58:21 | bauzas | leakypipes: just keep in mind that till' we prevent other scheduler drivers but FilterScheduler, we can't remove the filters that are feature-parity with superdan's placement-request-filter work | |
| 13:58:38 | superdan | um | |
| 13:58:48 | bauzas | leakypipes: other good news, we still allow to run custom scheduler driver, AFAIK | |
| 13:58:50 | superdan | you mean cachingscheduler only right? | |
| 13:59:08 | bauzas | superdan: I need to look at code, but I think we can run any scheduler driver code | |
| 13:59:13 | superdan | because I don't think we're promising to keep filters around for our own scheduler for other drivers | |
| 13:59:16 | superdan | sure, but, | |
| 13:59:20 | superdan | that's your problem if you do | |
| 13:59:30 | bauzas | that's one way to see it :) | |
| 13:59:40 | superdan | if you swap out the whole driver, but import our filters to use them... | |
| 13:59:55 | bauzas | but yeah, at least in-tree, we still have CachingScheduler and ChanceScheduler | |
| 14:00:02 | bauzas | both aren't calling placement | |
| 14:00:36 | superdan | heh, chancescheduler :) | |
| 14:00:44 | bauzas | tbc, while the former is production-targeted, I think we can safely drop chancescheduler | |
| 14:00:54 | bauzas | ... except we use it at lot in our functional tests | |
| 14:01:06 | bauzas | AFAIR | |
| 14:01:23 | bauzas | chancescheduler is just random(host) | |
| 14:01:31 | bauzas | it's not about chance | |
| 14:01:44 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: we do stil allow out of tree scheduler driver but we dont gurarntee not to break them | |
| 14:02:01 | bauzas | I agree | |
| 14:02:16 | bauzas | I'm just saying we allow that, so communication is the key | |
| 14:03:13 | sean-k-mooney | in future we will likely want to narrow that to say if you run a out of tree driver it must call placement but there is not much add benifit to that vs the filter driver with just one custom filter | |
| 14:05:21 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: the chance schduler could likely be ported to just a random weigher and a pass all filter for functional tests | |
| 14:09:56 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: placement: resource requests for nested providers https://review.openstack.org/554529 | |
| 14:10:11 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Fix tox -e docs https://review.openstack.org/564631 | |
| 14:11:16 | openstackgerrit | Takahito Hirose proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: api_version decorator becomes an error in Python 3.5.0. https://review.openstack.org/564774 | |
| 14:21:38 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Make sure microversion < 2.62 does not show host(Id) for instance actions https://review.openstack.org/564782 | |