| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-02-12 | |||
| 13:45:50 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Block rebuild when NUMA topology changed https://review.opendev.org/703116 | |
| 13:45:50 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Disable NUMATopologyFilter on rebuild https://review.opendev.org/703117 | |
| 13:45:51 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: FUP for in-place numa rebuild https://review.opendev.org/703118 | |
| 13:45:52 | lyarwood | sean-k-mooney: ^ just rebasing as stable/rocky should be passing again now and I'd like to land this before we switch over to EM | |
| 13:46:22 | lyarwood | aaaaaand I missed elod's comment | |
| 13:56:13 | bauzas | gibi: sean-k-mooney: I'm back | |
| 13:59:42 | gibi | bauzas: just replied with my understanding of Eric's summary | |
| 14:24:19 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: just back too | |
| 14:24:37 | sean-k-mooney | had to go to my bank to sort things for the house purchase | |
| 14:25:16 | bauzas | gibi: coolio thanks | |
| 14:29:15 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: ya that is more or less a good summary | |
| 14:29:17 | gibi | bauzas: I think I got enough from efried_afk's summary that I see that my issue is solved by this propsal as well | |
| 14:30:05 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: well this still has the fallback which solves your main issue but also make the numa reporting the default which solve erics main issue of people using the fature after all this work | |
| 14:30:06 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I treated the splitting algo as an impl detail for now. I think we can make it good enough and if not we have a way out | |
| 14:30:49 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: yeah, I'm OK that U compute is reshape by default | |
| 14:30:50 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: ya honelsty the poc i did would be good enouch in my book | |
| 14:30:58 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: agree | |
| 14:31:32 | sean-k-mooney | i will likely refacto that algoritim and submit a standalone patch later in the week | |
| 14:31:56 | sean-k-mooney | allowing asymetic spliting by default when you just set hw:numa_nodes is a minor change | |
| 14:32:03 | sean-k-mooney | and would be useful for numa instnaces | |
| 14:32:55 | sean-k-mooney | once we do that its just a matter of calling the get_numa_constratis function in a loop and generting the multiple queies and merging the results | |
| 14:44:22 | huaqiang | hi alex_xu | |
| 14:44:33 | alex_xu | huaqiang: i'm here | |
| 14:45:53 | huaqiang | do you mean, in the review of spec https://review.opendev.org/#/c/668656/, we have to mix 'hw:pinned_cpus' with 'resources:P|VCPU' | |
| 14:46:20 | huaqiang | BUT we should avoid the mixing of 'hw_pinned_cpus' with 'resources:xx; | |
| 14:46:27 | huaqiang | right? | |
| 14:47:06 | alex_xu | huaqiang: I mean it have to, althought we don't want that. | |
| 14:47:38 | alex_xu | I don't think we have other choice | |
| 14:49:58 | huaqiang | then there is no problem for setting the 'mixed' policy and cpu bitmask in image properties and then specify the PCPU and VCPU in flavor 'resources:P|VCPU'? | |
| 14:54:44 | sean-k-mooney | i have the mixed cpu spec open by the way so im going to try and finish reviewing it in the next hour or so before my next meeting | |
| 14:54:51 | alex_xu | huaqiang: yes, I think there is no problem | |
| 14:55:05 | alex_xu | sean-k-mooney: thanks | |
| 14:55:14 | huaqiang | sean-k-mooney: thank you :) | |
| 14:55:29 | huaqiang | alex_xu: got. thanks | |
| 14:57:01 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: are you largly happy with it? | |
| 14:57:19 | alex_xu | sean-k-mooney: yes, I think so | |
| 14:57:46 | sean-k-mooney | ok just wondering if you had pending comments. ill try and go through it form top to bottom now so | |
| 14:58:33 | alex_xu | no more pending comments. | |
| 15:03:26 | Sundar | gibi, dansmith, efried, sean-k-mooney: Trying to get my head around the rescheduling thing. Previously, the creation and binding of ARQs were happening in the compute manager. So, on failure, we just deleted the ARQs (which will be unbound by Cyborg if needed) and the retry would presumably have created/bound the ARQs on another node. Now the | |
| 15:03:27 | Sundar | create/bind are moved to the conductor, but that is done just before the RPC call to compute manager. So, could we still delete and recreate/rebind the ARQs? | |
| 15:04:21 | dansmith | Sundar: why is it any different? | |
| 15:04:52 | sean-k-mooney | so on a resudue instead of delete and recreate we can just rebind in the conductor | |
| 15:05:07 | dansmith | can we rebind? if so, then sure | |
| 15:05:18 | sean-k-mooney | if we cant delete and recreeate is fine too | |
| 15:05:32 | sean-k-mooney | we can update the host for an exisitng binding | |
| 15:05:41 | sean-k-mooney | it woudl be needed for move opertions anyway | |
| 15:05:52 | dansmith | well, not necessarily | |
| 15:05:55 | dansmith | depends on how they want to do it | |
| 15:06:06 | sean-k-mooney | i guess we could use a souce and dest arg | |
| 15:06:12 | sean-k-mooney | *arq | |
| 15:06:22 | sean-k-mooney | that might be better in some ways | |
| 15:06:29 | dansmith | if they wanted another ARQ bound to the new host and a switch, or whatever | |
| 15:06:40 | dansmith | that's not what he's asking though I assume | |
| 15:06:41 | sean-k-mooney | ya like we now do with neutron ports | |
| 15:06:45 | dansmith | right | |
| 15:06:50 | Sundar | dansmith, sean-k-mooney: It may be simpler to delete and re-create, similar to the rest of the patches. | |
| 15:07:03 | dansmith | yeah, that's fine | |
| 15:07:07 | Sundar | Yes, I am not talking about migration, which is out of scope for now | |
| 15:07:08 | sean-k-mooney | Sundar: i think dansmith and i both think thats fine | |
| 15:07:23 | Sundar | Cool, thanks, dansmith and sean-k-mooney. | |
| 15:08:49 | sean-k-mooney | if delete and recreate makes runing through the cyborg state machicne to prepare the device on the dest simpler i think it also makes sense to just do that | |
| 15:09:38 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. for that reason on its own in addtion to the fact thats what the other patches do and the workflow you have been using | |
| 15:11:28 | Sundar | sean-k-mooney: The Cyborg state machine can technically handle ARQ_UNBOUND state, which is reached when you unbind an existing ARQ without deleting it (and distinct from Initial state). That may be of use in the future, but for now it is simpler IMHO to just delete and recreate. | |
| 15:11:59 | sean-k-mooney | cool works for me | |
| 15:12:20 | sean-k-mooney | Sundar: speaking of delete where you able to repoduce the vm delete issue i hit | |
| 15:12:38 | Sundar | I am not hitting it even after reboots. | |
| 15:12:50 | sean-k-mooney | with the fake driver | |
| 15:13:30 | Sundar | I mostly used the real FPGA driver, but shouldn't matter, one would think. But let me try with the fake anyway. | |
| 15:14:00 | sean-k-mooney | its a keystone auth issue so the driver should not make a difference but i dont know | |
| 15:14:49 | sean-k-mooney | i do now have access to a system with the same fpga you have. but 1 im not sure what image to use and 2 it currently has rhel 7.7 so i have not figured out how to deploy opensatck on it yet | |
| 15:15:15 | sean-k-mooney | i might see if it can be reinstalled with centos 7.7 or ubuntu 18.04 so that i can use devstack | |
| 15:18:28 | Sundar | What's the issue with RHEL 7.7? | |
| 15:19:15 | Sundar | I am using Centos 7.7 | |
| 15:21:02 | sean-k-mooney | its not supported by devstack and im not sure i will be able to get it to install with out enable eple and rdo repos which dont technicaly support RHEL | |
| 15:21:36 | sean-k-mooney | im going to try and stack in a vm first with RHEL 7.7 but im expecting the subsription manager to get in the way | |
| 15:21:59 | sean-k-mooney | tl;dr im expecting missing packages | |
| 15:22:09 | Sundar | Got it. | |
| 15:22:49 | sean-k-mooney | if your using centos 7.7 and i have to reinstall ill just use that | |
| 15:30:27 | sean-k-mooney | huaqiang: some minor nits to clean up in a follow up patch but im +1 on the mixed cpu spec | |
| 15:31:35 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: i think you are probaly the best person to be the final +2 on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/668656/19 if you think its ready. | |
| 15:55:55 | efried | stephenfin: yes please, what sean-k-mooney said ^ | |
| 15:59:22 | stephenfin | Looking | |
| 16:00:39 | sean-k-mooney | i just responed to alex_xu coment regarding the service object version bump. i think we can use a comptue capablity trait instead and avoid the need for that | |
| 16:00:52 | sean-k-mooney | but excpetion for that point im good with it | |
| 16:16:41 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/queens: Use stable constraint for Tempest pinned stable branches https://review.opendev.org/706714 | |
| 16:21:14 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: Block deleting compute services with in-progress migrations https://review.opendev.org/699718 | |
| 16:33:19 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Skip to run all integration jobs for policy-only changes. https://review.opendev.org/707268 | |
| 16:33:29 | gmann | stephenfin: melwitt updated ^^ | |
| 16:34:26 | melwitt | gmann: do you have a Depends-On change that shows what gets run on a policy change? I think that's the best way to check whether it's doing what we want before +2ing | |
| 16:34:48 | gmann | melwitt: ok, i can do that. | |
| 16:35:52 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add new default roles in os-console-output policies https://review.opendev.org/707041 | |
| 16:36:17 | gmann | melwitt: ^^ done. let's see once gate finish | |
| 16:36:48 | melwitt | thanks gmann | |
| 16:37:09 | melwitt | gmann: oh, you have a typo Depednds-On | |
| 16:37:46 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add new default roles in os-console-output policies https://review.opendev.org/707041 | |
| 16:37:57 | gmann | ah sorry, updated | |
| 16:40:35 | Sundar | sean-k-mooney: Do you think https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/conductor/manager.py#L655 is a good place to delete the old ARQs? | |
| 16:42:56 | gmann | melwitt: I am not sure if default GET AZ to admin is right things. can you check this - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/706683/ | |
| 16:43:35 | melwitt | gmann: ok, will look | |
| 16:43:39 | gmann | It is currently admin-or-owner which is open for everyone due to bug or that is expected and admin-or-owner in policy is just misleading | |