Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-08-06
15:22:32 gibi dansmith: good point, we can do that
15:23:14 gibi then I will file a bug and this small change as a bugfix. then later when Stein is open I can remove the whole legacy path in a separate patch
15:23:29 dansmith yar
15:23:48 gibi dansmith: thanks for the brainpower
15:24:29 dansmith np :)
15:30:28 mdbooth Incidentally, my pbr test problem was that I wasn't explicitly installing python-testrepository. This resulted in <unfathomable pbr-related weirdness> ultimately resulting in the tests attempting to run functional rather than just unit.
15:35:06 efried jaypipes, mriedem, dansmith: What is it going to take to have sufficient confidence in any of the various attempts to reduce the number of redundant placement calls per periodic to actually merge code?
15:36:36 efried e.g. these two are quite similar
15:36:36 efried https://review.openstack.org/#/c/588091/ (removes the "first" _update)
15:36:36 efried https://review.openstack.org/#/c/587050/ (removes the "last" _update)
15:36:36 efried and are both showing green across the board test-wise.
15:37:46 jaypipes efried: which one do you prefer?
15:38:41 efried jaypipes: It makes little difference to me. The first one removes more lines of code. At the moment it's sitting on top of the reshaper series, but could be extracted easily.
15:42:11 mriedem idk
15:42:27 mriedem stuff like that likely won't show a side effect until we've merged it and run it awhile and found some weird failures,
15:42:33 mriedem which will likely be non-trivial to debug
15:42:38 efried just so.
15:42:43 mriedem so definitely not rocky
15:43:15 mriedem and i'd expect what you'd see are weird scheduling failures
15:43:20 mriedem due to some timing issue
15:43:34 dansmith and maybe not at all at gate-level scale
15:44:39 mriedem would be nice to have some company with a stress test lab kick around either of those to see what falls out
15:44:47 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Delete instance_group_member records from API DB during archive https://review.openstack.org/588943
15:45:07 mriedem but i'm pretty sure at this point in my time working on openstack, no company has a stress test lab that shares results publicly :)
15:45:32 mriedem if we don't see it in the gate,
15:45:44 mriedem we'll see it 18-24 months from now when someone actually upgrades to use it and finds problems
15:45:50 efried right
15:46:02 jaypipes mriedem: 36-64 months from now.
15:46:11 mriedem well, cern would be the first to hit it probably
15:46:13 efried But even that is a big "maybe".
15:46:56 mriedem i also haven't had the time to read cdent's write up on this either yet
15:47:09 efried mriedem: TL;DR we're calling _update twice every periodic.
15:47:16 mriedem yeah i knew that much :)
15:47:24 efried which calls all the placement things to refresh the cache etc.
15:47:33 efried that's really all there is to it.
15:47:42 cdent mriedem: there's not much more than that what efried says, must more words to indicate the code path
15:47:43 efried Do we need both calls for some reason?
15:48:05 mriedem also https://review.openstack.org/#/c/520024/
15:48:20 mriedem given ^ you should probably see if the ovh gang is interested in testing out either of those changes
15:48:50 mriedem when did we start doing the 2 calls?
15:48:56 mriedem b/c ovh might not have a region running that yet
15:49:30 cdent >18 months ago
15:49:39 cdent it was there when I did the first version of the post
15:50:26 efried oh look, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/520024 is exactly the same as https://review.openstack.org/#/c/588091/
15:50:29 mriedem looking at ^ from ovh they opted to leave in the _update call at the end
15:50:55 mriedem the +1 from minho on that was also because they had done a duplicate of the same patch
15:51:03 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Update resources once in update_available_resource https://review.openstack.org/520024
15:52:44 mriedem ok i have voted
15:52:54 openstackgerrit Chen proposed openstack/nova master: Trivial fix on migration doc https://review.openstack.org/589028
15:52:55 mriedem if it's a coin toss, go with what ovh is already using
15:53:13 mriedem and drop the duplicate change from efried and coalesce on the ovh patch
15:53:26 efried Note that there's also https://review.openstack.org/#/c/588094/ which is failing tox (expected because I haven't updated those tests yet) but also live migration consistently.
15:53:53 efried mriedem: The coalesce is a no-op; the extras in mine are only there because of the reshaper series. I've abandoned it.
15:54:05 mriedem maciejjozefczyk: are you guys running with this in production now? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/520024/
15:54:16 mriedem maciejjozefczyk: any side effects or issues with that patch?
16:00:06 mriedem jaypipes: has cfriesen talked with you about how they account for hosting shared and pinned cpus on the same host by making VCPU inventory a fraction?
16:00:37 mriedem i assume it would have come up during https://review.openstack.org/#/c/555081/
16:01:25 jaypipes mriedem: nope.
16:01:46 jaypipes mriedem: and I'm 100% against making amount a non-integer value.
16:03:55 cdent It was briefly glossed over in Dublin, but the response then was "placement can't do that"
16:04:05 cdent or maybe s/can't/won't/
16:04:18 dansmith I'm also 100% against that :)
16:04:24 mriedem i'm not suggesting we do that,
16:04:35 mriedem but i thought there was an alternative way to model it via nested providers, or some other kind of inventory
16:04:38 mriedem PCPUs?
16:05:37 mriedem looks like that is the proposal in the spec
16:05:51 dansmith we talked about making dedicated cpus a different inventory item in placement
16:05:53 dansmith if that's what youmean
16:05:55 mriedem yes
16:06:14 mriedem there is just a shit load of code in starlingx to deal with shared and pinned cpus on the same host,
16:06:26 mriedem and i'm mostly at the point of glossing over all of it and just saying, we have a spec for this
16:07:07 mriedem at the end of my diff dive i want to be able to give a sort of tl;dr on the major changes
16:07:33 mriedem which at this point is i think just shared/pinned on same host, live resize (cpu only), and l3 cache partitioning
16:07:47 mriedem there are a lot of other things, but those are the big ones that affect the entire stack
16:08:57 mriedem if you're all lucky, i might even make some m'fing charts!
16:17:59 mriedem surprisingly i don't see the tpm stuff in her
16:18:00 mriedem *here
16:19:22 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: api-ref: Add descriptions for rebuild https://review.openstack.org/588931
16:21:24 mdbooth lyarwood: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/587071/ I think that's the wrong build
16:22:18 mdbooth lyarwood: I won't be bowled over with surprise if I'm wrong, though.
16:29:44 mdbooth lyarwood: Hmm, looks like compute calls build_instances directly on reschedule? So... I could be wrong.
16:46:54 mdbooth mriedem: I assume it's not possible to 'demote' an attachment to a reservation?
16:50:11 mriedem first, that sounds borderline genocidal
16:50:22 mriedem second, i don't know what that means
16:50:32 mriedem an empty volume attachment reserves the volume
16:50:54 mriedem actually i think even a volume attachment that has a host connector is still not considering the volume as in-use,
16:51:02 mriedem that's why we have to call the 'complete' action on the attachment
16:51:06 mriedem to make the volume to in-use
16:51:20 mdbooth mriedem: Right. I'm just thinking of lyarwood's bug. The issue, IIUC, is that we create a 'reservation', which is an empty attachment, then the compute turns it into a real attachment, right?
16:51:29 mdbooth And the only way to get rid of that is to delete it.
16:51:46 mriedem depends on where we fail,
16:52:01 mriedem if we didn't get to the point of calling the complete action on the attachment, the volume is not in-use
16:52:02 mdbooth Sure, but if it's after we hydrated the attachment, this is how to rollback.
16:52:35 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Make get_allocations_for_resource_provider sane https://review.openstack.org/584598
16:52:35 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Report client: Real get_allocs_for_consumer https://review.openstack.org/584599
16:52:36 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Report client: get_allocations_for_provider_tree https://review.openstack.org/584648
16:52:37 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Report client: _reshape helper, placement min bump https://review.openstack.org/585034
16:52:39 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Report client: update_from_provider_tree w/reshape https://review.openstack.org/585049
16:52:40 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Compute: Handle reshaped provider trees https://review.openstack.org/576236
16:52:46 mriedem i believe i talked to myself at length on an earlier PS on the review about how we could just simply not delete the attachment before rescheduling

Earlier   Later