| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-07-03 | |||
| 14:19:17 | jroll | which is in _build_and_run_instance | |
| 14:19:29 | jroll | so that's probably where the build is bombing | |
| 14:19:42 | jroll | and the n-cpu traceback is an unrelated red herring | |
| 14:20:18 | sambetts | same exception on both sides though :/ | |
| 14:20:33 | efried | jroll: Then why is that exception message in the resched... yeah | |
| 14:20:34 | jroll | yes | |
| 14:20:45 | jroll | same exception, different call stack | |
| 14:21:00 | sambetts | maybe the reason they are both raising that execetion is because of a collision? | |
| 14:21:00 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Transform instance-live_migration_post notification https://review.openstack.org/480119 | |
| 14:21:13 | jroll | note that the conductor exception has _do_build_and_run_instance as the source | |
| 14:21:51 | jroll | _do_build_and_run_instance calls _build_and_run_instance calls rt.instance_claim() calls rt._update() calls.... down to where that exception happens | |
| 14:25:21 | dansmith | mriedem: does this mean you don't need to have the hangout this morning? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/564445/11/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py | |
| 14:26:14 | sambetts | jroll, efried: I can't see anything in the placement logs to indicate why it could sync :/ | |
| 14:26:37 | sambetts | and I would have thought if this was racey it would be so consistently failing :/ | |
| 14:26:45 | efried | sambetts: Which call is 409ing? | |
| 14:26:48 | dansmith | I'm still not clear on why we just need to know if any of the networks have the attributes specified, because that doesn't seem like nearly enough information for us to do something differently that we couldn't do by default, but.. | |
| 14:27:19 | sambetts | efried: I don't see any | |
| 14:28:33 | efried | well wtf | |
| 14:28:42 | mriedem | dansmith: if it's satisfactory for you then maybe not, but as you said, i'm still unclear on how this is going to be used and i haven't gotten that far in the series yet to find out - at least i'd like to hold off on approving the object changes at the bottom of the series until i'm more comfortable with how they are being used in the rest of the series | |
| 14:29:06 | dansmith | okay I'm not sure what revelation you've had that makes you okay with it now, if not "why" | |
| 14:29:17 | mriedem | but i think it answers my question about physnet and tunneled being mutually exclusive for a given network | |
| 14:29:40 | dansmith | okay, yeah I get that although it's on faith about the larger thing | |
| 14:33:17 | tssurya | dansmith: do you have some time now to discuss about aggregates behaviour ? | |
| 14:33:42 | dansmith | tssurya: yeah, I was going to hassle mriedem about one other thing, but it can wait | |
| 14:34:07 | tssurya | so, since we have aggregate "hosts" concept, the thing doesn't work well with ironic | |
| 14:34:21 | tssurya | since in ironic 1 host = many compute nodes | |
| 14:34:38 | tssurya | and we would need something like aggregate "compute bodes" | |
| 14:34:42 | tssurya | nodes* | |
| 14:34:58 | tssurya | because now we have the pre-placement filters which allow scheduling | |
| 14:35:02 | efried | sambetts, jroll: Let me spin up a quick and dirty fix and we can see if it clears this up. Need a couple hours tho. | |
| 14:35:02 | tssurya | based on aggregates | |
| 14:35:24 | sambetts | efried: thanks that would be really useful :) | |
| 14:35:46 | tssurya | I guess what I am trying to say is, does it make sense to expand aggregate add hosts to actually be aggregate add compute nodes ? | |
| 14:37:02 | dansmith | tssurya: well, that's a sticky situation of course | |
| 14:37:12 | mriedem | tssurya: there is a whole series i just abandoned for that last week | |
| 14:37:13 | mriedem | and a spec | |
| 14:37:24 | dansmith | tssurya: you can create aggregates in placement and add compute nodes to them because the resource providers are actually the ironic nodes | |
| 14:37:24 | tssurya | mriedem: oh really ? | |
| 14:37:28 | jroll | efried: <3 | |
| 14:37:29 | mriedem | and we said at the ptg you can do aggregates with pre-placement request filters and placement aggregates | |
| 14:37:44 | dansmith | tssurya: but in terms of making it automatic we'd need to change nova's api | |
| 14:38:00 | tssurya | dansmith: right, I mean nova api change | |
| 14:38:12 | tssurya | because it is a pain to add this manually on the nova side | |
| 14:38:15 | dansmith | yeah, that's a problem | |
| 14:38:16 | tssurya | for the ironic nodes | |
| 14:38:41 | mriedem | tssurya: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/aggregate-affinity | |
| 14:39:02 | tssurya | mriedem: thanks looking | |
| 14:41:17 | dansmith | mriedem: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/559032/ | |
| 14:44:24 | tssurya | mriedem, dansmith: oh right so the work around was to just have them in the placement aggregate! | |
| 14:44:27 | tssurya | thanks | |
| 14:44:34 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 14:44:47 | tssurya | I guess I totally missed/forgot | |
| 14:44:49 | tssurya | that | |
| 15:00:38 | sahid | stephenfin: do you want reconsider your vote for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/579611/ ? | |
| 15:00:51 | sahid | mriedem: ^ | |
| 15:01:03 | openstackgerrit | jiang wei proposed openstack/nova master: Add action initiator attribute to the instance payload https://review.openstack.org/536243 | |
| 15:01:15 | stephenfin | sahid: In a meeting but I can take a look once I'm done | |
| 15:02:24 | dansmith | mriedem: coming? it's awkward with just stephenfin and myself | |
| 15:02:29 | mriedem | 4ever in bluejeans | |
| 15:02:32 | mriedem | this isn't hangouts at all | |
| 15:02:33 | openstackgerrit | Konstantinos Samaras-Tsakiris proposed openstack/nova master: Hide hypervisor id on windows guests https://review.openstack.org/579897 | |
| 15:03:43 | sahid | stephenfin: ok np, nothing hurry actually | |
| 15:28:40 | efried | sambetts, jroll: Can you identify whether there are/were/should be nodes with the following UUIDs in the environment for | |
| 15:28:40 | efried | http://192.133.158.227/12/514312/12/experimental/ironic-dsvm-tempest-ironic-cimc-current-centos-7-cimc/f7c455a/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz | |
| 15:28:58 | efried | => fbd2e932-ea59-4b57-a206-a839f40fa182 | |
| 15:28:58 | efried | => 7e1567e7-4d7c-4ad1-9563-3d277f4fb04d | |
| 15:29:07 | efried | => 72b0a2e0-277b-4698-bfd6-aa15623e44bd | |
| 15:29:51 | jroll | efried: those are likely fake nodes created by other tempest tests | |
| 15:30:04 | jroll | that said, this is a third party CI environment that isn't mine | |
| 15:30:10 | jroll | so I'll let sam speak from here on :) | |
| 15:31:05 | efried | ahhh. So, that appears to be what's actually causing the failure here. Those guys show up in the provider tree, so we try to update them, but by the time we get to hitting placement for them, they're gone. | |
| 15:31:19 | sambetts | efried: those nodes were created by the ironic tempest api tests and then deleted after, the only real node in the test environment is b5bb2c51-3960-4d9c-b47e-223d83cb6139 | |
| 15:31:40 | jroll | oh, we update everything at build time? | |
| 15:31:50 | jroll | or everything for that compute service | |
| 15:32:13 | efried | jroll: Yes, update_from_provider_tree is supposed to make the host's placement presence right. | |
| 15:32:36 | jroll | mmmm | |
| 15:32:48 | stephenfin | sahid: Yup, makes sense. +2 now | |
| 15:36:54 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Update xenapi_disable_agent config option usage in docs https://review.openstack.org/578848 | |
| 15:43:03 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: use dest host vif migrate details for live migration https://review.openstack.org/551370 | |
| 15:43:04 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Annotate flows and handle PortBindingDeletionFailed in ComputeManager https://review.openstack.org/551371 | |
| 15:43:05 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Port binding based on events during live migration https://review.openstack.org/434870 | |
| 15:43:06 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: conductor: use port binding extended API in during live migrate https://review.openstack.org/522537 | |
| 15:45:09 | efried | sambetts: jroll: So I think this is probably the problem here, which a retry isn't going to fix: ironic's update_provider_tree isn't getting rid of nodes when they disappear. | |
| 15:45:56 | efried | sambetts, jroll: How (via what code path) are these fake nodes "created by the ironic tempest api tests and then deleted after" ? | |
| 15:46:04 | jroll | efried: right, and it races with the thing that cleans up orphan nodes | |
| 15:46:29 | jroll | efried: via api tests in our tempest plugin being run (in parallel?) with the scenario tests | |
| 15:46:32 | efried | jroll: Oh, we have a thing that cleans up orphan nodes? Does that thing actually remove them from placement? Where does that code live? | |
| 15:47:15 | jroll | efried: not sure where the code is offhand, but see e.g. http://192.133.158.227/12/514312/12/experimental/ironic-dsvm-tempest-ironic-cimc-current-centos-7-cimc/f7c455a/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz#_Jul_03_12_53_45_414036 | |
| 15:47:23 | efried | jroll: Okay, but the tempest tests presumably use some kind of API to create/delete the nodes. Because they're ending up registered in placement somehow. | |
| 15:47:28 | jroll | I think it's handled in update_available_resource or something | |
| 15:47:49 | sambetts | they are just created in ironic, then nova syncs with ironic and picks up the new nodes | |
| 15:47:55 | jroll | efried: yes, POST ironic-host/v1/nodes, then the ..... yes that | |
| 15:48:31 | efried | oho | |
| 15:48:42 | efried | it's happening *after* _update_available_resource_for_node | |
| 15:49:32 | efried | sambetts: How reproducible is this thang? | |
| 15:51:00 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: network: Always retrieve network information if available https://review.openstack.org/564444 | |
| 15:51:01 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: network: Retrieve tunneled status in '_get_physnet_info' https://review.openstack.org/564445 | |
| 15:51:02 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: objects: Add NUMACell.network_metadata https://review.openstack.org/564439 | |
| 15:51:03 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: objects: Add NUMATopologyLimits.networks https://review.openstack.org/575486 | |
| 15:51:04 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: hardware: Start accounting for networks in NUMA placement https://review.openstack.org/564448 | |