Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2020-01-13
15:47:46 sean-k-mooney knowing its a mixed cpu explictly makes it eairer to derive thing in my view
15:48:06 sean-k-mooney but makeing it optional as long as you tell us how much of each type you want keeps it clean
15:48:13 sean-k-mooney if that is what you prefer
15:49:22 efried Yeah, I really don't understand why it needs to be explicitly stated by the user.
15:49:51 efried "will trigger X code paths by default" <== we will be changing those code paths as part of this feature, right?? That's what code changes are for??
15:50:14 efried Mixed means you have to take shared code paths in some places, dedicated in other places.
15:50:22 efried That's gonna happen internally regardless.
15:50:43 sean-k-mooney i think we only ever check for dedicated so i think you would always take the shared path
15:50:58 sean-k-mooney but yes it will be changed in anycase by this feature
15:51:20 efried I'm not refuting that we need "mixed" logic internally.
15:51:41 sean-k-mooney by the way im still looking for the code that allows resouce:PCPU=4 to actully give you a pinned guest
15:51:51 efried I'm saying, why require it to be stated by the user if it can be inferred 100% from the fact that they MIXED THEIR CPUs in the flavor?
15:52:11 sean-k-mooney well the field is an ovo filed and i dont like adding another seperate variable
15:52:28 efried an OVO field in what, the Flavor?
15:52:34 sean-k-mooney so if we extend the ovo filed defintion it will alther the api check implcitly to allow it
15:52:46 sean-k-mooney no in the image metadata
15:52:52 sean-k-mooney and in the numa objects
15:53:05 efried but it's not a required field.
15:53:29 sean-k-mooney yes it can be unset or set to shraed explcitly for floating instance or set to dedicated
15:53:43 efried Fine.
15:53:50 efried but don't require it.
15:54:32 efried I assume you can set it from either the flavor or the image?
15:54:38 sean-k-mooney the sematica are that if its not set in the flavor it means the image can requst pinning. so unset and set to shared are different
15:54:51 efried So we funnel those into the numa object
15:54:58 sean-k-mooney yes
15:55:16 sean-k-mooney and it becomes part of the numa constratin used in the numa toplogy filter and on the compute node
15:55:19 efried we logically evaluate cpu policy-ness from the flavor and the image to determine the value in the internal numa object
15:55:30 efried ? ^
15:55:53 sean-k-mooney we store it as cpu_polciy in the instnace numa topology
15:56:08 sean-k-mooney by reading the flavor and image properties yes
15:56:11 efried cool,
15:56:11 efried so what I'm saying is,
15:56:11 efried if neither the flavor nor the image dictates a cpu_policy, and the flavor specifies both VCPUs and PCPUs, we set the value internally to mixed.
15:56:23 efried but we do not require the flavor or image to say 'mixed'.
15:56:26 sean-k-mooney yep
15:56:34 sean-k-mooney ya we coudl do that
15:56:37 efried because they already did, by specifying VCPU+PCPU
15:56:40 efried and,
15:56:42 sean-k-mooney but i think we should not block it either
15:56:55 efried if they say VCPU+PCPU and specify cpu_policy=$anything_other_than_mixed, we have to fail.
15:57:11 sean-k-mooney am yes i think we can do that
15:57:32 sean-k-mooney infact i think we should already be doint that in the api somewhere
15:57:36 efried so if we're going to do that, I don't see why we even need to bother exposing the *ability* for them to say cpu_policy=mixed in the flavor/image.
15:57:45 efried but I won't die on a hill for that.
15:57:55 sean-k-mooney it would be more work to not expose it
15:57:59 efried fine
15:59:36 sean-k-mooney efried: huaqiang are we really sure we supprot enabling cpu_pinning by using PCPUs
15:59:40 sean-k-mooney https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/0012fdfdc387da97d1d396e5ebda152d7c10b091/nova/objects/instance_numa.py#L111-L112
15:59:53 sean-k-mooney well i guess maybe if we have set that internally
16:00:02 sean-k-mooney i still need to find that code
16:03:06 huaqiang sean-k-mooney: in hardware.py I'll find it for yo
16:04:56 huaqiang https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/virt/hardware.py#L1860
16:06:07 sean-k-mooney thanks ok and https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/virt/hardware.py#L1840-L1843 is where we block the mixed case
16:06:22 sean-k-mooney so the transformation happens in the api
16:07:13 sean-k-mooney numa_get_constraints is invoked form teh api to validate teh request and it si used when constuction teh numa toplogy object that is passed to the schduler
16:07:37 huaqiang it will be permitted for mixed case
16:08:09 sean-k-mooney yes so basicaly at line 1840 you will replace that with a check that will set the polciy to mixed internally
16:08:17 openstackgerrit Iury Gregory Melo Ferreira proposed openstack/nova master: Add ironic hypervisor doc https://review.opendev.org/701998
16:08:28 sean-k-mooney then make the if on line 1845 an elif
16:08:44 sean-k-mooney so we only take it if its a non mixed case
16:13:04 huaqiang https://review.opendev.org/#/c/696009/1/nova/virt/hardware.py
16:13:19 huaqiang this is my poc code for this part
16:21:44 huaqiang sean-k-mooney, efried: It is too late for me, I'll go to sleep, and I caught the current idea is using an interal policy 'mixed' in code path, but without exposing it to end user for using in flavor or image properties.
16:27:24 sean-k-mooney huaqiang: good night o/
16:31:11 efried huaqiang: to be clear, I'm saying don't *require* it from the end user. I would prefer not to expose it, but if doing so (as optional) makes something significantly easier, I won't object to it.
17:06:00 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Remove extra instance.save() calls related to qos SRIOV ports https://review.opendev.org/702261
18:02:50 artom I can never remember this, what's the order of assertEqual(expected, actual)?
18:12:24 dansmith expected,actual
18:17:37 mriedem fyi https://github.com/testing-cabal/testtools/blob/master/testtools/testcase.py
18:19:17 mriedem just your friendly neighborhood lurker
18:20:29 artom Are we... are we like crack to you?
18:21:09 mriedem just eating lunch
18:21:14 mriedem my artom sense went off
18:21:29 artom Aww, you have a sense for me
19:01:02 efried someone should
19:01:19 efried <tsssss>
20:15:37 openstackgerrit Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Functional tests for NUMA live migration https://review.opendev.org/672595
20:15:39 openstackgerrit Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: NUMA LM: Add func test for bug 1845146 https://review.opendev.org/687404
20:15:39 openstack bug 1845146 in OpenStack Compute (nova) train "NUMA aware live migration failed when vCPU pin set" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1845146 - Assigned to Dan Smith (danms)
20:15:45 artom *finally*
20:19:48 sean-k-mooney oh its stacked ...
20:35:45 efried dustinc: You have a couple of notes in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/676522/ about needing more UT coverage. Is that still true?
20:35:54 efried (I haven't dug in yet to verify)
20:41:00 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Add NovaEphemeralObject class for non-persistent objects https://review.opendev.org/702049
20:55:54 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Update provider config spec for identification conflicts https://review.opendev.org/693414
21:10:18 dustinc efried: I thought it was good and I just forgot to remove the note, but I checked again just to be sure and actually found another scenario I want to write a test for..
21:10:47 efried dustinc: I just finished reviewing the code side and found some things that need to be fixed anyway.
21:11:32 dustinc I have to step away for a few minutes, but I will check it out in a few. Thanks!
21:13:09 efried no hurry
#openstack-nova - 2020-01-14
02:37:46 openstackgerrit Dustin Cowles proposed openstack/nova master: Provider Config File: Functions to merge provider configs to provider tree https://review.opendev.org/676522
02:37:47 openstackgerrit Dustin Cowles proposed openstack/nova master: Provider Config File: Enable loading and merging of provider configs https://review.opendev.org/693460
02:48:19 openstackgerrit Dustin Cowles proposed openstack/nova master: Provider Config File: Functions to merge provider configs to provider tree https://review.opendev.org/676522
02:48:19 openstackgerrit Dustin Cowles proposed openstack/nova master: Provider Config File: Enable loading and merging of provider configs https://review.opendev.org/693460
06:27:35 openstackgerrit Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Populate 'updated_at' when aggregate is updated https://review.opendev.org/580271
07:47:18 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: Libvirt: report storage bus traits https://review.opendev.org/666914
08:00:25 brinzhang gibi: are you around?
08:20:04 openstackgerrit Alexandre arents proposed openstack/nova master: Avoid allocation leak when deleting instance stuck in BUILD https://review.opendev.org/702368
08:46:43 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: virt: Provide block_device_info during rescue https://review.opendev.org/700811
08:46:43 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add support for stable device rescue https://review.opendev.org/700812
08:46:44 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: WIP compute: Report COMPUTE_BFV_RESCUE and check during rescue https://review.opendev.org/701429

Earlier   Later