| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-05-20 | |||
| 13:56:50 | sean-k-mooney | that feel heavy wait but it shoudl resolve the issue of missing the event | |
| 13:57:05 | sean-k-mooney | *heavyweight | |
| 13:58:22 | mriedem | umm, isn't the issue just that we're not waiting for the unplugged even on the dest when we unplug vifs before casting to the source? | |
| 13:58:58 | mriedem | i'm kind of in the middle of changing all of my internal domain and email shit b/c of this embargo so can't really dig into this right now, but pretty sure i've gone over this (with dansmith and artom) already in detail once or twice | |
| 13:59:32 | cdent | blargh, that sounds painful | |
| 13:59:43 | mriedem | things are not fun right now no | |
| 14:02:02 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: ack. | |
| 14:05:10 | sean-k-mooney | as far as i can tell for the logs we are still reciving the event before we start waiting | |
| 14:05:57 | sean-k-mooney | recive the vif-plugged event here http://logs.openstack.org/81/644881/15/check/nova-multinode/628c731/logs/subnode-2/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz#_Apr_29_15_18_02_574298 but starte to wait for it 2 seconds later here http://logs.openstack.org/81/644881/15/check/nova-multinode/628c731/logs/subnode-2/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz#_Apr_29_15_18_04_002370 | |
| 14:06:11 | sean-k-mooney | if we fix that i think that will resolve the issue | |
| 14:17:14 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: i believe i pointed out the issue here https://review.opendev.org/#/c/639396/3/nova/compute/manager.py@4184 | |
| 14:17:58 | mriedem | which is what artom's final patch in the series is doing https://review.opendev.org/#/c/644881/15/nova/compute/manager.py | |
| 14:18:05 | mriedem | waiting for the event before doing migrate_instance_finish | |
| 14:18:58 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem thanks im looking at the code now but ill read your comment to make sure im on the same page | |
| 14:19:21 | mriedem | did the bug get punted to you at this point or are you just trying to get caught up and review the series? | |
| 14:19:46 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: artom is on PTO for a few days so both | |
| 14:20:10 | sean-k-mooney | im trying to get caught up to review and determin if the current fix is correct and if not fix it | |
| 14:22:49 | sean-k-mooney | we think that this issue happens when you are using hybrid_plug e.g. the iptables firewall driver which we use downstream but not upstream so one of the things that i need to test is modifying the gate job temporally to repoduce this upstream without code change to confrim | |
| 15:12:32 | aarents | Hi, If need some more review on change that fix please (only +1 for now) https://review.opendev.org/#/c/659054/ | |
| 15:12:40 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Remove conductor_api and _last_host_check from manager.py https://review.opendev.org/651059 | |
| 15:12:40 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Remove 'etc/nova/cells.json' https://review.opendev.org/660146 | |
| 15:13:21 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: docs: Remove references to nova-consoleauth https://review.opendev.org/652965 | |
| 15:13:21 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: tests: Stop starting consoleauth in functional tests https://review.opendev.org/652966 | |
| 15:13:22 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: xvp: Start using consoleauth tokens https://review.opendev.org/652967 | |
| 15:13:22 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: nova-status: Remove consoleauth workaround check https://review.opendev.org/652968 | |
| 15:13:23 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Remove nova-consoleauth https://review.opendev.org/652969 | |
| 15:13:23 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: objects: Remove ConsoleAuthToken.to_dict https://review.opendev.org/652970 | |
| 15:13:24 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: docs: Rework nova console diagram https://review.opendev.org/660147 | |
| 15:13:48 | aarents | with less typo: I need some more review on that fix please (only +1 for now) https://review.opendev.org/#/c/659054/ thks ! | |
| 15:14:52 | efried | aarents: Looks like you have a merge conflict to resolve. | |
| 15:16:19 | efried | adrianc: are you around to make minor tweaks to https://review.opendev.org/#/c/643024/ if needed? | |
| 15:16:27 | sean-k-mooney | oh passing size when the image is deleted. the logic still seam right but i dont know that code well enough to review it so ill contiue to abstane form that review | |
| 15:17:37 | adrianc | efried: yes | |
| 15:18:10 | aarents | sean-k-mooney: ok no prob, efried: exact, will check that | |
| 15:21:13 | efried | adrianc: commented. | |
| 15:21:48 | sean-k-mooney | aarents: for what its worth if mdbooth thinks its ok then that is a +1.5 when it comes to the image cache so once you rebase against master it shoudl be easier to get review form the cores | |
| 15:21:52 | adrianc | efried: thx, will address shortly (meeting ...) | |
| 15:22:05 | efried | adrianc: A little background: First off, if you're reraising the original exception, you want to just say | |
| 15:22:06 | efried | raise | |
| 15:22:06 | efried | rather than | |
| 15:22:06 | efried | raise e | |
| 15:22:06 | efried | because the former preserves the original stack trace and exception context. | |
| 15:22:34 | efried | But it's also theoretically possible for intervening calls (like LOG.*) to mess with the exception context | |
| 15:22:54 | sean-k-mooney | efried: i like your deffintion of spelling :) | |
| 15:23:07 | efried | adrianc: so oslo provides a save_and_reraise_exception context manager that saves off the exception context while you do whatever, then makes sure to restore it properly before reraising. | |
| 15:23:32 | efried | sean-k-mooney: I have no words for you. | |
| 15:24:33 | sean-k-mooney | efried: i was refering to to your comment on adrianc patch | |
| 15:24:36 | efried | and misspelled | |
| 15:24:41 | efried | yeah, I know :) | |
| 15:24:48 | tssurya | mriedem, dansmith: could you both circle back to https://review.opendev.org/#/c/636132/ whenever you get some time ? thanks in advance! | |
| 15:24:55 | sean-k-mooney | ya i avoid that word for irony reasons | |
| 15:25:06 | dansmith | tssurya: yeah, sorry | |
| 15:25:13 | efried | I was trying to come up with some way to respond to sean-k-mooney commenting on anything to do with spelling, and I just came up blank. Totally speechless. | |
| 15:25:43 | tssurya | dansmith: no need to be sorry :) I understand you must be busy with lots of other stuff | |
| 15:26:19 | tssurya | this spec is a little too specific after all | |
| 15:33:42 | aspiers | efried: I've switched the SEV capability patch we discussed on Friday to instead set an instance variable and then provide the trait in u_p_t(). I'm now wondering where I should put the functional tests: in nova.tests.functional.test_servers.TraitsTrackingTests, or nova.tests.functional.test_report_cpu_traits.LibvirtReportTraitsTests | |
| 15:34:06 | aspiers | The latter seems more appropriate, I guess | |
| 15:34:24 | efried | aspiers: looking... | |
| 15:34:41 | aspiers | but the former already has tests closer to what I need (I wrote them, in fact) | |
| 15:38:14 | efried | aspiers: Is FakeLibvirtDriver in the way here? | |
| 15:38:56 | efried | I still don't fully understand how that thing works. | |
| 15:39:11 | efried | Obviously we want your tests to run through the real libvirt driver's upt | |
| 15:39:25 | efried | so as long as that's happening, it doesn't matter from a code point of view. | |
| 15:39:26 | efried | but | |
| 15:39:33 | efried | test_servers is way too effin big already. | |
| 15:39:34 | aspiers | efried: Ideally it should test not just that a) it provides the SEV trait on detection, but also b) it replaces it if the admin removes it, and that it removes it if c) the host isn't SEV-capable but an admin provides it or d) if the host *becomes* SEV-incapable | |
| 15:39:56 | aspiers | i.e. the same scenarios I tested when doing the cap-to-trait thing before | |
| 15:40:19 | aspiers | but this time with the trait coming from a different bit of code | |
| 15:40:23 | efried | ...And these are testing that libvirt reports traits, so LibvirtReportTraitsTests seems appropriate just based on the name. | |
| 15:40:37 | aspiers | Yeah, name-wise that wins for sure | |
| 15:40:52 | efried | aspiers: I understand. I wouldn't be averse to a patch that moves those tests :) | |
| 15:41:09 | aspiers | but yeah, you're right this needs to test the real libvirt driver | |
| 15:41:23 | efried | any patch that refactors test_servers.whatever into more-appropriately-named-smaller-module would be a win imo. | |
| 15:41:26 | aspiers | Moves which tests? | |
| 15:41:35 | efried | aspiers: The ones you did about capability traits | |
| 15:41:46 | aspiers | To where? They're not libvirt-specific | |
| 15:41:50 | efried | ahem, I guess those should... right | |
| 15:41:57 | efried | ...be in a module about drivers setting traits. | |
| 15:42:22 | efried | bah | |
| 15:42:34 | aspiers | How about this: | |
| 15:42:52 | efried | ++ (/me predicts future) | |
| 15:43:46 | aspiers | I find some co-conspirators from Red Hat, and stage a coup where the PTL gets overthrown. Oh good, +1 from you already | |
| 15:44:10 | efried | yeah, I walked into that | |
| 15:44:22 | aspiers | What I was actually gonna suggest is, I'll stick them in LibvirtReportTraitsTests, but if that means duplicating code already in test_servers.py, then I'll extract it out into a shared utils library | |
| 15:44:32 | aspiers | which might already exist | |
| 15:44:37 | efried | ++ | |
| 15:44:37 | aspiers | or might not | |
| 15:45:02 | efried | Doesn't have to be shared utils per se, just a separate module that tests trait-y things but not libvirt-specific. | |
| 15:45:08 | aspiers | right | |
| 15:45:08 | efried | Then the libvirty one can inherit from that. | |
| 15:45:29 | efried | Do the refactor in a new patch underneath, if you please. | |
| 15:45:49 | efried | If it's straightforward enough, I might be able to ninja approve it. | |
| 15:46:37 | aspiers | OK | |
| 15:47:30 | efried | yeah, test_servers is nearly 7kloc. That's too much | |
| 15:47:35 | aspiers | agreed | |
| 15:48:32 | aspiers | efried: should I first just extract TraitsTrackingTests to a separate file? | |
| 15:49:00 | efried | yeah, and TraitsBasedSchedulingTest with it | |
| 15:49:01 | aspiers | or that and ProviderTreeTests? | |
| 15:49:20 | aspiers | something like test_server_traits.py? | |
| 15:49:33 | bnemec | efried: Worth noting that the save_and_reraise context was to work around a bug in eventlet that I believe has since been fixed. | |