| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-08-30 | |||
| 19:37:26 | melwitt | so there must be a way we're adding things to self.compute_nodes that are object shells, not gotten from the DB or newly created | |
| 19:41:31 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Default AZ for instance if cross_az_attach=False and checking from API https://review.openstack.org/469675 | |
| 19:49:07 | cdent | thanks mriedem will do some poking and prodding | |
| 19:49:50 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: VMware: Live migration of instances https://review.openstack.org/270116 | |
| 19:52:12 | mriedem | tzumainn: which virt driver? libvirt? ironic? | |
| 19:52:21 | mriedem | and are you doing anything when this happens? | |
| 19:52:35 | melwitt | it's ironic | |
| 19:52:39 | mriedem | like, is this on start of nova-compute or during a periodic task? | |
| 19:52:48 | mriedem | hmmm, is a rebalance happening? | |
| 19:53:10 | tzumainn | mriedem, ah, this is ironic - I've just enrolled four nodes, and am trying to figure out why they don't show up in 'openstack hypervisor list' | |
| 19:53:56 | mriedem | they won't show up in openstack hypervisor list until you've "discovered" them | |
| 19:54:02 | mriedem | see the nova-manage cell_v2 discover_hosts command | |
| 19:54:07 | mriedem | you'll need to discover by service | |
| 19:55:12 | tzumainn | ah, okay! I wasn't aware - I'm following the instructions in http://tripleo.org/install/advanced_deployment/baremetal_overcloud.html which I guess are out of date | |
| 19:56:26 | melwitt | the traceback was unrelated then. still don't see how the condition of no 'id' on a ComputeNode in self.compute_nodes can happen (thought it obviously can happen somehow) | |
| 19:56:43 | mriedem | yeah i don't really know how that's being hit | |
| 19:57:13 | mriedem | tzumainn: no idea re tripleo deployment, they have their own irc channel for that | |
| 19:57:16 | melwitt | remove_node removes things from the dict if orphaned, all of the setting of self.compute_nodes seem to be covered by actual DB gets or creates. weird | |
| 19:57:17 | mriedem | plus like 50 red hat cores | |
| 19:58:39 | tzumainn | mriedem, haha, yep - I started out talking with some ironic folks, and confusion all around has led me here : ) | |
| 19:58:55 | tzumainn | thanks for the information, I really appreciate it! | |
| 19:59:30 | mriedem | maybe related to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/587922/ ? | |
| 20:00:19 | jungleboyj | mriedem: I don't have a separate one. Asked people to mark the topics and then I was going to collect them up. | |
| 20:00:22 | mriedem | remove_node should likely be in the same semaphore as _update_available_resource_for_node | |
| 20:00:52 | mriedem | i guess i already said that https://review.openstack.org/#/c/587922/2/nova/compute/resource_tracker.py | |
| 20:01:21 | mriedem | so self.old_resources will default a ComputeNode object if an entry isn't in the dict... | |
| 20:02:25 | zigo | mriedem: Should I try your patch at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/598176/ and report the result? | |
| 20:02:45 | melwitt | does self.compute_nodes refer to self.old_resources at all? | |
| 20:03:01 | mriedem | they are compared in _resource_change | |
| 20:03:11 | mriedem | to determine if we should call ComputeNode.save() | |
| 20:03:28 | mriedem | zigo: we aren't going to ship that revert i don't think so probably would be a waste of your time | |
| 20:04:13 | zigo | mriedem: If it's only a temporary fix that I can use to validate all of Rocky, that's nice already, then I can still remove the patch... | |
| 20:04:34 | zigo | Hum... | |
| 20:04:39 | zigo | It doesn't apply at all anyway. | |
| 20:05:12 | zigo | mriedem: This wasn't in rocky. | |
| 20:05:16 | mriedem | cdent: melwitt: was also wondering if this somehow is contributing to the allocation ratio bug https://review.openstack.org/#/c/518294/ | |
| 20:05:19 | mriedem | but that was in queens | |
| 20:05:27 | mriedem | zigo: right | |
| 20:05:56 | melwitt | ack | |
| 20:06:44 | zigo | mriedem: Could you see something with the added logs in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/597175/ ? | |
| 20:06:54 | zigo | Both your patches were added there ... | |
| 20:06:58 | zigo | (the ones for logging...) | |
| 20:08:07 | mriedem | i added more debug logs this morning after a recreate in the xen ci, was just about to check those results | |
| 20:08:42 | mriedem | tzumainn: you might want to report a nova bug regardless so we don't lose track of what you hit | |
| 20:08:52 | mriedem | i'm not sure *how* you're hitting it, but that seems to be the theme this week with all bugs | |
| 20:09:00 | mriedem | "how in the hell is this even possible?" | |
| 20:09:12 | tzumainn | mriedem, hahaha - okay, I'll do that, thanks! | |
| 20:09:58 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Report client: _reshape helper, placement min bump https://review.openstack.org/585034 | |
| 20:10:00 | mriedem | dansmith: is it weird that ComputeNode.save() doesn't check to see if 'id' is changed? | |
| 20:10:01 | mriedem | or not set? | |
| 20:10:31 | dansmith | create or save? | |
| 20:10:32 | mriedem | i guess if it weren't set we'd blow up | |
| 20:10:33 | mriedem | save | |
| 20:10:36 | melwitt | I was thinking save() would just fail if there's no id, because then how could it find the thing to update | |
| 20:10:46 | dansmith | not sure we usually check that it's set on save, but we could | |
| 20:11:01 | dansmith | on create we usually check to avoid re-create | |
| 20:11:03 | mriedem | melwitt: right we'd blow up if id wasn't set on save | |
| 20:11:07 | melwitt | yeah | |
| 20:11:08 | mriedem | yeah we check on create | |
| 20:11:18 | mriedem | i was wondering if id changed though and we saved | |
| 20:11:51 | mriedem | i guess we don't really check for that anywhere | |
| 20:11:54 | dansmith | we pop id out of the changes, | |
| 20:12:03 | melwitt | even if we did, that doesn't explain the complete lack of an 'id' on a ComputeNode object in self.compute_nodes | |
| 20:12:04 | dansmith | but I guess we try to save anyway even if that was the only thing | |
| 20:12:50 | melwitt | I still don't see how we could lose that, even with the self.old_resources compare | |
| 20:13:23 | dansmith | if id is actually not set then it's either an object created with no id (not from the db) or someone del'd it off an objet | |
| 20:13:24 | mriedem | i don't either, i was wondering if we were getting a blank ComputeNode from old_resources which uses defaultdict and somehow shoved that blank one into self.compute_nodes | |
| 20:13:25 | mriedem | but we don't | |
| 20:13:51 | melwitt | yeah | |
| 20:16:17 | mriedem | there is a very small window where self.compute_nodes could have a ComputeNode in it without an id | |
| 20:16:20 | mriedem | in _init_compute_node | |
| 20:16:21 | mriedem | self.compute_nodes[nodename] = cn | |
| 20:16:21 | mriedem | cn.create() | |
| 20:16:25 | mriedem | b/c cn.create() is what sets the id | |
| 20:16:46 | mriedem | but, that code is all in a lock on the same host when we call update_available_resource | |
| 20:16:52 | mriedem | so not sure how anything could race and hit that | |
| 20:16:54 | melwitt | yeah, I wondered about that | |
| 20:17:46 | mriedem | tzumainn: did you by chance have multiple nova-compute services running on the same host? | |
| 20:17:59 | mriedem | no that still wouldn't do this | |
| 20:18:05 | mriedem | b/c the compute nodes map is in memory | |
| 20:18:19 | mriedem | i give up | |
| 20:18:20 | tzumainn | mriedem, I only have one, in any case | |
| 20:18:27 | tzumainn | mriedem, no worries, thanks for taking a look : ) | |
| 20:20:16 | mriedem | so uh, the xen ci passed this time with the debug patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/597613/ | |
| 20:20:21 | mriedem | that's nice and consistent | |
| 20:23:46 | melwitt | great | |
| 20:26:28 | melwitt | keeping in the theme of Impossible Bug Week | |
| 20:26:29 | Sundar | melwitt: I am proposing a session for Cyborg/Nova to sort out os-acc. The main session could be in Cyborg time (Mon/Tue) and hopefully placement folks would attend. It may be helpful to get some time on Nova schedule as well to get everybody on board. What do you think? | |
| 20:26:52 | cdent | sorry mriedem, I'm sort of afk: if it was was that patch from back in queens, then the twisted narrow passageways are way twisted and have a lot of explaining to do to say why it's only showing up now | |
| 20:29:54 | melwitt | Sundar: do you think we need two sessions? we could just join the monday or tuesday session since nova doesn't start until wednesday | |
| 20:29:55 | cdent | mriedem: can you think of a way we could model the issue in a functional test? the feedback latency is hurting my head | |
| 20:30:50 | mriedem | cdent: given the xen ci is now passing, i don't really know | |
| 20:31:03 | mriedem | and why this isn't failing with the libvirt driver in master CI, again don't know | |
| 20:31:10 | cdent | fun fun | |
| 20:31:12 | mriedem | efried: we now have a new ERROR in the n-cpu logs on startup http://logs.openstack.org/98/584598/21/check/tempest-full/85acbda/controller/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz?level=TRACE#_Aug_29_21_43_10_675029 | |
| 20:31:22 | mriedem | efried: b/c we hit ^ before the resource provider is created | |
| 20:31:50 | mriedem | new from https://review.openstack.org/#/c/584598/ | |
| 20:32:17 | dansmith | hmm, I got that disk not found one the other day locally | |
| 20:32:26 | dansmith | I thought it was residue from my old machine | |
| 20:33:04 | dansmith | is that because we're re-raising too? | |