Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-07-18
20:32:06 artom Exactly
20:32:08 efried But as a warning, not sure if it's really worthwhile or not.
20:32:17 artom When it turned into a warning, is it really useful?
20:32:26 efried I'm not sure
20:32:34 efried it depends how the cold migration failure manifests
20:32:54 efried if it's one of those things where it's really hard to figure out why it happened, unless you have this warning, then we might want to keep it around.
20:33:27 efried then again, are you really going to notice this warning waaay back in the logs while you're investigating your cold mig failure.
20:36:17 artom To set migration.dest_host
20:36:27 artom (Which AFAICT isn't actually used for anything)
20:36:56 artom Ah, no, it's passed to migrate_disk_and_power_off
20:38:49 artom And then is used in the actual cleanup catch-all Exception handler
20:38:51 artom So yeah, problems
20:56:51 efried nova meeting in 4 minutes in #openstack-meeting
21:49:38 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (13) https://review.opendev.org/576020
21:49:53 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (14) https://review.opendev.org/576027
21:50:15 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (15) https://review.opendev.org/576031
21:50:36 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (16) https://review.opendev.org/576299
21:50:50 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (17) https://review.opendev.org/576344
21:51:02 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (18) https://review.opendev.org/576673
21:51:20 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (19) https://review.opendev.org/576676
21:51:43 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (20) https://review.opendev.org/576689
21:52:08 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (21) https://review.opendev.org/576709
21:52:38 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (22) https://review.opendev.org/576712
21:54:00 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Add database schema upgrade check https://review.opendev.org/667047
21:54:20 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Add a live migration regression test https://review.opendev.org/641200
21:54:37 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Fix cleaning up console tokens https://review.opendev.org/637716
22:36:18 dustinc_OSCON Anyone use any tools for reviewing local diffs before pushing other than ‘git diff’?
23:17:37 efried dustinc_OSCON: I have in the past, don't really anymore. Long ago I used one called beyond compare. But I don't remember whether it worked with diffs (à la git) or with two actual copies of the file, probably the latter.
23:18:04 efried If I'm really having trouble seeing what I want to see via git diff, I'll actually just push the change to gerrit and review it there.
#openstack-nova - 2019-07-19
00:05:06 openstackgerrit melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Avoid logging traceback when detach device not found https://review.opendev.org/671640
01:07:08 alex_xu kashyap: I replied you on the maillist, looks like ceilometer still using the perf meters, include some of meter isn't just about cmt.
02:38:42 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Fix cleaning up console tokens https://review.opendev.org/637716
03:09:47 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Replace "integrated-gate-py3" template with new "integrated-gate-compute" https://review.opendev.org/671551
05:29:39 openstackgerrit Alex Xu proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Use PCPU and VCPU in one instance https://review.opendev.org/668656
05:37:59 openstackgerrit Alex Xu proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Use PCPU and VCPU in one instance https://review.opendev.org/668656
07:58:39 kashyap alex_xu: Will check; thank you
08:01:27 alex_xu kashyap: not sure how ceilometer enable those meters https://github.com/openstack/ceilometer/blob/master/ceilometer/compute/virt/libvirt/inspector.py#L218, since nova doesn't pass those parameter to libvirt
08:01:54 kashyap Yeah, was wondering the same; thanks for the code pointer
08:04:07 cdent alex_xu, kashyap : I seem to recall that at some point ceilometer made their own compute node agent rather than listening to nova, because nova didn't want to give all the information that ceilo wanted to get
08:04:30 cdent I may be remembering wrong though. Also I have zero context here so I may be butting in with info that you've already got.
08:04:57 kashyap cdent: No, I didn't know what you said; that's useful to know
08:05:14 cdent kashyap: you'll definitely want to check me on that. It's a vague memory
08:05:17 kashyap cdent: The context is this patch: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/669129/
08:05:50 kashyap cdent: Linux kernel has removed the underlying infrastructure for Intel "CMT"
08:06:05 cdent seems like it's a done deal then, yeah?
08:06:10 kashyap Right
08:06:29 kashyap We already today warn if any anyone specifies the "CMT" 'performance' events via Nova's config attributes
08:06:43 cdent kill it! kill it with fire!
08:06:51 kashyap Hehe, yeah.
08:07:31 kashyap However there are *other* 'perf' events besides the CMT variants. So I asked on the mailing list if anyone is using them at all.
08:07:54 kashyap [While bearing in mind -discuss list audience does not represent all users ever :D]
08:13:47 alex_xu kashyap: we can write other event than cmt https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/conf/libvirt.py#L785
08:14:26 kashyap alex_xu: Right, I wrote that documentation :-)
08:14:48 kashyap I was merely wondering if there are real-world users who are using these other events at all
08:15:06 alex_xu kashyap: I missed understand that conf only can can fill cmt, mbm..etc
08:15:26 kashyap No, not really -- any of the allowable `perf` events by libvirt
08:15:35 alex_xu kashyap: yes, that is always a question hard to answer
08:15:35 kashyap Hence my question on the list about *non-CMT* events
08:15:44 kashyap Right
08:17:03 alex_xu oops
08:19:08 kashyap alex_xu: Sorry if I didn't phrase it clearly.
09:29:26 openstackgerrit zhangyangyang proposed openstack/nova master: Bump the openstackdocstheme extension to 1.20 https://review.opendev.org/671694
10:32:22 openstackgerrit zhangyangyang proposed openstack/nova master: Bump the openstackdocstheme extension to 1.20 https://review.opendev.org/671694
11:35:10 artom alex_xu, still around? I figure we can talk here rather than on gerrit, about vpmem and NUMA LM
11:44:57 artom So the current flow is driver.cclm_dest -> rpc.cclm_source -> claim -> driver.numa_config
11:45:19 artom The claim has to happen before driver.numa_config, and presumably before driver.vpmem_config or whatever you'd call it
11:45:53 artom And rpc.cclm_source has to happen before the claim, because the source will tell the destination if it's trying to perform a NUMA live migration
11:46:14 artom (We can't just check instance.numa_topology because the source might be an old compute)
11:46:24 artom (But that could change in a later release)
11:46:57 artom So really the question is, can rpc.cclm_source happen before driver.cclm_dest
11:47:36 artom *what
11:48:04 artom Ah, it's passed the dest_check_data
11:51:12 artom So it doesn't look like we can change the order
11:51:33 artom I'll put all that ^^ in gerrit :)
13:22:43 efried stephenfin: there's this spec https://review.opendev.org/#/c/668656 about mixing VCPU/PCPU in one instance.
13:22:49 efried I see you looked at it a few patch sets ago
13:23:01 stephenfin Yup. I really don't want that to happen this cycle
13:23:12 efried oh
13:23:13 efried whyzat?
13:23:24 stephenfin I've been working on cpu-resources, which that relies on, all this week and a good bit of last week
13:23:40 efried yes, obviously that's a hard dep
13:23:46 stephenfin The upgrade scenario is tricky af
13:24:19 stephenfin but it's being made easier by some assumptions I can make through a VM being all one kind of CPU
13:24:31 efried you mean reshaping allocations?
13:24:39 stephenfin Among other things, yeah
13:24:43 efried Hm
13:25:01 stephenfin The reason we dragged that out in the first place was because cpu-resources was horribly complex
13:25:07 efried yeah, I get that.
13:25:16 efried can a VM today have pinned and shared?
13:25:24 stephenfin Not today, no
13:25:33 efried oh, I see. Yeah, that makes a difference.
13:25:38 stephenfin Except for emulator threads
13:25:45 stephenfin But that's not the same thing at all
13:26:01 stephenfin Anyway, I'm not sure why dragging that complexity back in would be something we'd ever want to do
13:26:09 efried well
13:26:18 stephenfin This cycle, that is
13:26:20 efried there's a strong customer use case
13:26:22 stephenfin Next cycle, I'm all over that
13:26:42 efried tbc, the ask on you would be review, not code
13:26:50 stephenfin I figured there might be, aye :)

Earlier   Later