Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-10-10
15:25:42 cfriesen okay, I can switch to COMPUTE_SECURITY_TPM_1_2 and COMPUTE_SECURITY_TPM_2_0 if jaypipes is cool with that
15:26:10 jaypipes sean-k-mooney: we have used COMPUTE_ to refer to virt-driver specific capabilities. I don't believe this is that?
15:26:18 jaypipes sean-k-mooney: isn't TPM a hardware thing?
15:26:30 cfriesen jaypipes: with the trait we're talking about an emulated TPM
15:26:42 cfriesen the hardware TPM would be a resource since there would be a finite number of them
15:26:49 jaypipes ah, right..
15:26:55 jaypipes OK, good with me then.
15:27:07 sean-k-mooney yep what cfriesen said :)
15:27:11 jaypipes this is what I was confusing HPET with :)
15:27:19 sean-k-mooney yep
15:27:25 cfriesen okay, I'll respin the TPM spec with that minor change
15:27:30 jaypipes cfriesen: you proposing the os-trait patch?
15:27:53 cfriesen sure
15:28:59 sean-k-mooney *subdivided
15:29:19 jaypipes cfriesen: ok, when you do, please be sure to be crystal clear that the trait refers to the virt-driver emulated capability, not a physical resource.
15:29:28 jaypipes sean-k-mooney: I'm kidding with you :)
15:29:43 cfriesen jaypipes: right, makes sense
15:29:49 jaypipes ty sir
15:30:24 sean-k-mooney what i have realised while typeing used to massively reduce the amount of missspelling i made due to reversing or omitting letter now that i touch type entirly without thinking they are reappearing
15:31:39 sean-k-mooney it used to be a huge problem in school when i would hand write things and just stop writing a word half way through and start in the middle fo the next one bacially because my hand could not keep up with my brian when writing
15:32:49 jangutter In the past few years I've noticed that I've started to mistype things really really badly, reading back the sentence once is no longer enough for me to figure out what I messed up.
15:33:38 jangutter Worse, it's happening to my speech too. Pretty hilarious when you realise that your words leaving your mouth and in your brain don't match up.
15:34:50 jangutter but really, I try to spread that rumour so I can claim I actually meant "offloads" when I said "screwdriver".
15:48:49 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Ignore hw_vif_type for direct, direct-physical vNIC types https://review.openstack.org/609460
15:49:04 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: ^
15:57:05 openstackgerrit Chris Friesen proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add support for emulated virtual TPM https://review.openstack.org/571111
16:00:59 openstackgerrit Andreas Jaeger proposed openstack/nova master: Replace openSUSE experimental check with newer version https://review.openstack.org/609467
16:03:02 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Consider nested allocations during allocation cleanup https://review.openstack.org/606050
16:03:03 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Reject forced move with nested source allocation https://review.openstack.org/605785
16:04:55 gibi jaypipes, mriedem, bauzas, efried: here is the rework of the force migration with nested allocation https://review.openstack.org/#/c/605785
16:05:08 gibi and I'm leaving for today
16:05:13 bauzas I'm done for the day, but I'll look tomorrow
16:05:20 bauzas hah
16:09:07 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: can you take a look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/609414/ before you leave
16:09:25 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: Can do
16:09:51 sean-k-mooney master is currently broken for hardware offloaded ovs and some other cases this will fix it and harden up the interface a little
16:26:38 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: Yeah, good spot
16:27:53 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: lennyb spotted it and pingged rodlfo and i on the neutron irc this morning
16:28:23 sean-k-mooney i was thinking about fixing the name spaceing of those module too but i think there is already enough in one patch
16:28:32 sean-k-mooney i might submit a followup later
16:28:35 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: I'm going to see if we can do the same thing claudiub did here to avoid that happening again https://review.openstack.org/#/c/470775/
16:29:30 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: im not sure that would have help in this case but i might not under stand awhat that dose enough either
16:30:28 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: Yeah, it wouldn't actually. I thought https://review.openstack.org/#/c/609414/1/os_vif/tests/unit/internal/command/ip/windows/test_impl_netifaces.py was mocking the wrong stuff but it's not
16:31:02 sean-k-mooney this is the improtant test https://review.openstack.org/#/c/609414/1/os_vif/tests/unit/internal/command/ip/test_api.py
16:31:26 sean-k-mooney before we were returing an instance of the ip lib for windows and the module for linux
16:31:43 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: Just left a nit comment on that, actually
16:32:33 mriedem dansmith: on that initial allocation ratios spec, there is one place we still use the compute node fields, and that's in the scheduler https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/6bf11e1dc14afad78b11d980c2544a3dc41579ff/nova/scheduler/host_manager.py#L256
16:32:46 sean-k-mooney ya i realsied i coudl have used that too. im going to be adding more unit tests wehn ir change the module layout so ill change that then if your ok with that
16:32:51 mriedem so we set the values on the compute (in the RT) and then read in the scheduler
16:33:00 dansmith mriedem: but aren't those just for the filters?
16:33:04 dansmith what else cares about those?
16:33:28 mriedem weighers use it too i guess
16:33:46 dansmith to pick things that aren't set for oversubscription?
16:33:49 dansmith that seems weird
16:34:11 mriedem the numa topology filter is also using it
16:34:12 dansmith oh, numa filter uses it
16:34:18 dansmith hah
16:34:24 dansmith christ
16:34:37 dansmith so
16:34:43 dansmith (a) we should try to get someone to fix that
16:35:02 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: Yup, it's just a nit
16:35:02 dansmith (b) we can just update the compute node record with the same policy as we update placement
16:35:28 mriedem which is use config if set
16:35:35 mriedem that's what the spec proposed yeah
16:35:39 dansmith yep
16:35:44 dansmith okay I see the use in the weigher
16:35:48 mriedem the question was about upgrading from compute nodes that have 0.0 values in the db
16:36:01 mriedem and i said we could online data migrate those by reading config if the values are 0.0
16:36:13 dansmith the 0.0 means that scheduler uses its own config, right?
16:36:26 sean-k-mooney regarding the numa topology filter im not sure it actully need the allocation ratiors
16:36:27 mriedem no
16:36:43 dansmith allocation_ratio of zero makes no sense otherwise right?
16:36:47 mriedem nothing in the scheduler reads config for allocation ratios
16:36:58 dansmith mriedem: it used to though yeah?
16:37:04 mriedem in the long long ago i guess,
16:37:07 mriedem oh well,
16:37:12 mriedem the facade would i guess yeah...
16:37:30 dansmith point being, 0.0 is nonsense
16:37:30 mriedem the ComputeNode._from_db_object would read from config if 0.0 in the db
16:37:38 jaypipes dansmith: ++
16:37:55 dansmith so we could leave that, and only set it if they override per compute.. same logic as placement
16:38:05 dansmith and anything existing with 0.0 gets the same treatment as usual I guess
16:38:26 mriedem leave the facade in ComputeNode._from_db_object?
16:38:49 dansmith i imagine it won't affect compute's use if it is ignoring what is set on the object, so .. sure?
16:38:58 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: for https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/0163b9bfb54aaa89b0574c86e7fd36321eebccfe/nova/scheduler/filters/numa_topology_filter.py#L91-L102 can you think of a use case wehre we actully need the allcoation ratiios here
16:39:33 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: we are not allowed to over subsibe against our selves wehn fitting to a host so setting them to 1.0 i think would be valid
16:42:05 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: i would have to go through the code to check but i think we could make the numa topolgy filter work without them.
16:42:50 sean-k-mooney dansmith: although it sound like we dont need to remove them if we go wtih the facade right
16:43:14 dansmith sean-k-mooney: it won't be right if you do
16:43:32 dansmith sean-k-mooney: because if people set the ratio in placement per-compute, which is what we're trying to enable with all of this work,
16:43:38 dansmith the filter will consider a value other than what is in placement
16:44:04 dansmith I'm guessing we don't get back ratios in /a_c, but if we did, we could update our host states before we call the filters
16:44:12 sean-k-mooney dansmith: yes but this is not using the placement value anyway
16:44:18 jaypipes mriedem: why would we keep the facade stuff in ComputeNode._from_db_object()?
16:44:38 dansmith sean-k-mooney: right but right now they have to be the same
16:44:39 dansmith sean-k-mooney: in the future they will not be
16:44:52 dansmith jaypipes: see the discussion just now on the filters that use it, and existing computes in the db with 0.0 set
16:45:21 mriedem jaypipes: we either need to leave that or online data migrate the 0.0 entries from existing records in the db on read
16:45:21 sean-k-mooney dansmith: placement woudl have already filtered out any host that did not pass its allocation right. so we should not have to check twice and sicne we can oversubsibe againat ourselve an allocation ration of 1 i think would still be correct
16:45:46 sean-k-mooney dansmith: anywway its not important right now i guess

Earlier   Later