Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-11-26
18:19:55 mriedem dansmith: that reminds me, was it you that didn't get my humpty dance reference while we were strolling through the death camp?
18:20:17 mriedem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBsjggc5jHM
18:20:50 adrianc sean-k-mooney: to which source claim are you referring ?
18:21:11 dansmith mriedem: I knew you were talking about this song, I just didn't get how it related to, uh, mass murder
18:21:28 mriedem i don't remember
18:22:57 artom mriedem, you can pass the host to drop_move_claim
18:22:59 adrianc sean-k-mooney: if you mean removing the free_instance_allocations() in _post_live_migration then yes, but it will be another place we rely on the periodic resource_tracker job
18:23:32 artom So even if we call it from the source, we could drop the claim on the... wait, if we call it on the source, we just drop the resources on the source, since the instance is on the dest
18:24:19 adrianc artom: Hi, in regards to numa aware live migration, the plan is to converge for stein right ? as the SRIOV live migration will not mean much without it
18:24:28 sean-k-mooney adrianc: in option 1 we would have 2 vfs calimed with the same pci request uuid so if we do that i was wondering if we can avaoid relying on the periodic heal and proactivly release the vf on the source when we then migration completes
18:24:56 sean-k-mooney adrianc: well the sriov migration should be doable without the numa one
18:25:18 mriedem artom: see
18:25:53 adrianc sean-k-mooney: in the PS i am freeing the instance allocation on the source node.
18:26:52 sean-k-mooney adrianc: i ok ill read what you are currently doing and then ill respond to the question on the spec or updated it to match what you have implmeneted
18:27:20 adrianc sean-k-mooney: unless you request dedicated CPUs right ? (previous comment)
18:28:20 sean-k-mooney adrianc: yes but wwe shoudl treat these as seperate specs and seperate work items but makes sure they both work togeter in the end
18:28:38 artom mriedem, wait, so the cell conductor isn't involved at all? It's just superconductor and the source and dest?
18:28:55 adrianc sean-k-mooney: i agree, they do not depend, i was just wondering if its planned for stein as well :)
18:28:55 sean-k-mooney adrianc: in the simple case fo a floating instace with neutron sriov interface there is no numa affinity or numa topology for the guest
18:29:33 sean-k-mooney adrianc: the numa aware migration is proably more impactful to land in stien then sriov but hopefully both can land
18:31:24 mriedem artom: yes
18:31:41 mriedem superconductor orchestrates everything to find the correct dest host, then kicks things off with an rpc cast to the source
18:31:50 mriedem and then source/dest computes just rpc back and forth
18:32:00 mriedem there is no reschedule or anything within the cell conductor for live migration
18:32:00 artom OK, I need to eat, but I think I'm starting to understand the problem you're explaining, mriedem. Namely: we can't keep a claim context going, so... I guess we'll need to shove it in the migration context, like with cold migration?
18:32:13 mriedem i guess?
18:32:25 mriedem the instance.migration_context is still a bit of a mystery to me
18:32:29 mriedem but i also need to eat
18:32:34 artom You and everyone else
18:32:40 mriedem dansmith: comments on the numa live migration spec which maybe you can answer,
18:32:43 mriedem re: move claims
18:32:57 artom I think if Nikola came back today, he'd still know more than all of us combined
18:33:15 mriedem on that very hairy part of the code? i agree.
18:33:28 mriedem there are also TODOs in there from him about the move claim stuff for reize
18:33:29 mriedem *resize
18:34:04 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/594c653dc1a312d0364ad24c703e1a9b228133e1/nova/compute/manager.py#L3988
18:34:41 mriedem anyway, turkey leftovers
18:36:05 sean-k-mooney mriedem: when you are back maybe you could weigh in on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/605116/6/specs/stein/approved/libvirt-neutron-sriov-livemigration.rst@111 also.
20:59:01 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove ironic/pike note from *_allocation_ratio help https://review.openstack.org/620154
21:15:34 mnaser so while answering an ML post about all_tenants and friends, i found this TODO since 2015 -- https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/be41910ac6be28060d9007778fb33766077de59b
21:15:51 mnaser do we just drop that part of the code at that point? given it's been uncommented for years now
21:19:40 artom mriedem, does the superconductor really rescheduler if the live migrations fails? I'm looking but I can't find anything in _execute, and in the conductor manager if there's a failure in _live_migrate it just sets an error.
21:20:00 artom Not sure it's super relevant to the spec, but for my own personal edification
21:21:39 mriedem mnaser: you mean drop it at this point?
21:22:19 mnaser mriedem: i think so? i mean it's just dead code for 5 years, do we want to muck around with microversion bumps and blah
21:23:25 mriedem mnaser: tbc, you're saying just ditch the commented out code since no one cares enough to change it with a new microversion
21:23:39 mnaser yep
21:24:29 mriedem shrug
21:24:33 mriedem i don't see anyone caring enough to change it
21:24:54 mriedem the fact you have to supply the all_tenants parameter to filter on project_id does always confuse me
21:25:00 mnaser well
21:25:03 mriedem but at least it's documented in the api-ref
21:25:03 mnaser the clients workaround it now..
21:25:13 mnaser pretty sure you dont need to do that anymore with the cli
21:25:40 mriedem https://docs.openstack.org/python-novaclient/latest/cli/nova.html#nova-list
21:25:48 mriedem nova list --tenant will just implicitly add --all-tenants
21:25:59 mriedem if that's what you mean by workaround
21:26:20 mnaser yeah
21:26:41 mnaser https://github.com/openstack/python-openstackclient/blob/master/openstackclient/compute/v2/server.py#L1147-L1153
21:26:44 mnaser same for osc
21:27:20 mriedem if you want to push a patch to remove the cruft, fine by me
21:27:23 mriedem i might even +2 that
21:27:52 mriedem anything to make that method smaller b/c god is it long
21:35:23 mriedem bnemec: have you ever heard of requests for something like a PostitiveIntOpt or PositiveFloatOpt in oslo.config? we have some options which can be set to 0.0 as the min, but really shouldn't be <= 0.
21:35:32 mriedem but we can't really describe that with just min
21:37:27 dansmith choices=range(1,1000) ? :P
21:37:36 bnemec mriedem: So an opt where min is a < comparison instead of a <=?
21:38:21 mriedem something like that
21:38:28 mriedem for context https://review.openstack.org/#/c/602804/9/nova/conf/compute.py
21:38:36 mriedem initial_cpu_allocation_ratio should never be 0.0
21:38:39 dansmith we really just want a validation function parameter, right?
21:38:43 mriedem yeah
21:38:44 dansmith we wanted that for something else recently
21:38:53 openstackgerrit Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/nova master: Drop cruft code for all_tenants behaviour https://review.openstack.org/620165
21:38:53 dansmith validator=lambda str: ...
21:41:19 bnemec A validator callback seems like something we could do.
21:41:32 bnemec Alternatively, in this case min=0.000001 is probably also sane.
21:46:16 bnemec You could also create a custom type that did the validation in the constructor.
21:46:44 bnemec Subclass Float and put whatever logic you need in there: https://github.com/openstack/oslo.config/blob/master/oslo_config/types.py#L409
21:47:14 mriedem I wasn't sure how kosher subclassing oslo.config opt types was
21:47:16 bnemec Then create the opt as Opt(type=MyCustomType, ...).
21:47:55 bnemec They're part of the public API so I'd say they're fair game.
21:49:20 mriedem ok yeah that's probably cleanest
21:49:25 bnemec They danger might be creating a completely new class as a type, which could theoretically be done, but if we ever added to the type API you might get broken.
21:49:32 bnemec As long as you inherit from an existing type you should be okay though.
21:49:57 bnemec They all descend from a single ABC.
21:50:53 mriedem the adam of config opts?
21:51:14 bnemec Indeed.
21:51:30 bnemec Also, I think I was wrong. You want to do validation in __call__.
21:51:40 bnemec That's where we're doing it in the existing types: https://github.com/openstack/oslo.config/blob/master/oslo_config/types.py#L830
21:52:19 mriedem ah yeah https://github.com/openstack/oslo.config/blob/master/oslo_config/types.py#L305
21:52:51 bnemec Yeah, better example. :-)
22:03:19 mriedem welp https://review.openstack.org/#/c/613126/ kind of blows up https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/stein/approved/initial-allocation-ratios.html#manually-set-placement-allocation-ratios-are-overwritten
22:03:23 mriedem how am i not surprised
22:05:21 mriedem efried: you'll have some context on ^
22:06:52 mriedem i'm not exactly sure what we should do about it, outside of passing an initial flag to update_provider_tree or something gross like that...although maybe upt can check the provider tree to see if it already has inventory with allocation_ratio set, and if so, don't provide a value unless CONF.*_allocation_ratio is not None
22:09:27 openstackgerrit Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Give drop_move_claim() correct docstring https://review.openstack.org/620170
22:09:43 artom mriedem, ^^ related to the numa live migration spec. I *think* I'm right, and it might clarify the confusion around where we're removing usages.
22:10:31 mriedem artom: totally forgot you pinged me earlier, sec
22:10:52 mriedem artom: superconductor does not reschedule if live migration fails, no

Earlier   Later