| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-06-10 | |||
| 09:53:50 | openstackgerrit | Alexandre Arents proposed openstack/nova master: Snapshot: offload glance upload in a native thread https://review.opendev.org/734776 | |
| 09:58:00 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Mark e1000e VIF as supported https://review.opendev.org/734777 | |
| 09:58:01 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Can you sanity check that too, please? ^ | |
| 10:15:24 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Don't allow "reserving" file-backed memory https://review.opendev.org/734658 | |
| 10:15:27 | stephenfin | gibi: ^ | |
| 10:15:30 | stephenfin | as requested | |
| 10:16:30 | stephenfin | bauzas: Another (easier) one for your list https://review.opendev.org/#/c/734777/ | |
| 10:16:50 | bauzas | stephenfin: the exception one is a bit hairy, I need to make sure you don't forget anything | |
| 10:17:33 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: yep ill take a look shortly | |
| 10:19:14 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: did you check if we report hugepages in the host numa toplogy blob | |
| 10:19:23 | sean-k-mooney | when file backed memory is enabled | |
| 10:19:40 | stephenfin | I did not. What would be the implication? | |
| 10:19:53 | stephenfin | Just that we shouldn't do it? | |
| 10:20:02 | sean-k-mooney | we cant use filebacked memory and hugepages at the same time | |
| 10:20:15 | sean-k-mooney | but the numa toplogy filter has no idea if this config value is set | |
| 10:20:23 | sean-k-mooney | so it wont elimiate those hosts | |
| 10:20:31 | stephenfin | Hmm, good point. That'd be another good fix | |
| 10:20:33 | stephenfin | Lemme go look | |
| 10:20:52 | sean-k-mooney | so unless we dont report hugepages when there vailable if its set then we could get boot fails i think | |
| 10:21:02 | sean-k-mooney | ya seperate patch if its not done | |
| 10:25:41 | stephenfin | Does anyone know how to get a KCS taken down? https://access.redhat.com/solutions/3947641 | |
| 10:26:20 | stephenfin | For some daft reason, someone suggested people modify their DB rather than ask us to resolve a trivial bug :-\ | |
| 10:30:53 | stephenfin | ^ Ignore that. Intended for downstream IRC :) | |
| 10:37:56 | sean-k-mooney | damit is there way way we can just stop support form publishing kcs artical without having them go through tech review | |
| 10:38:09 | sean-k-mooney | ya i dont know but i reviewd https://review.opendev.org/#/c/734658/3 | |
| 10:41:02 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Don't allow "reserving" file-backed memory https://review.opendev.org/734658 | |
| 10:41:29 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Addressed doc typo. Let's track the hugepage/total GB issue separately? | |
| 10:42:04 | sean-k-mooney | yep im cool with that we can just file a seperate bug that patch fixes the bug you have already filed | |
| 10:43:09 | bauzas | stephenfin: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/733668/2 got a -1 because of PEP484 usage be py3 specific | |
| 10:43:35 | gibi | stephenfin: thanks for the reno | |
| 10:44:17 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: we are allowed to use py3 only syntax and feature on master | |
| 10:44:25 | bauzas | I know | |
| 10:44:28 | stephenfin | I was about to say :) | |
| 10:44:43 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: and this is not enforce excpetion type it adding them | |
| 10:44:49 | stephenfin | personally, I think this patch is too invasive to backport | |
| 10:44:51 | bauzas | but then if we backport, we'll get linters shouting at us with no idea why | |
| 10:45:22 | sean-k-mooney | if we backport we need to drop the type info | |
| 10:45:36 | stephenfin | I think we're just going to have to live with that. I'll just drop the type info if I went back past stable/ussuri | |
| 10:45:40 | sean-k-mooney | we were holding of on adding it so we did not need to use the comment syntax | |
| 10:45:50 | stephenfin | yeah, exactly | |
| 10:45:58 | bauzas | stephenfin: then, just amend the commit msg and we're all good | |
| 10:46:25 | stephenfin | Sure. What should I add? | |
| 10:46:44 | bauzas | I don't want to refrain ourselves to use py3 styles, but I rather just want us to take 5 mins before writing it and consider backportability of such things | |
| 10:46:55 | sean-k-mooney | it took me a long time to be ok with the type on the right after all the c/c++/java/c# i wrote before learning python but im slowly gettin gused to it | |
| 10:46:55 | bauzas | stephenfin: just tell your decision | |
| 10:47:11 | sean-k-mooney | it seam like most lanaguges are converging on that order now | |
| 10:47:15 | bauzas | option A/ this bugfix isn't intended to be backported | |
| 10:47:34 | bauzas | option B/ if people feel brave enough to backport, there will be a necessary change | |
| 10:47:49 | bauzas | in other words, document your code :) | |
| 10:48:03 | stephenfin | Hmm, I _could_ but it does feel like stating the obvious | |
| 10:48:03 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: so im ok with b if iall it is is removing :<Type> | |
| 10:48:19 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: me too, just my point | |
| 10:48:28 | bauzas | again, it's just a static check AFAIK | |
| 10:48:30 | sean-k-mooney | i dont think that need to be in a comit or called out anywhere in the chagne | |
| 10:48:45 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: well its not even a staitc check | |
| 10:48:51 | sean-k-mooney | the py2 jobs will fail | |
| 10:49:00 | sean-k-mooney | it wont parse correctly | |
| 10:49:02 | stephenfin | We'd saying if you use Py3 syntax and your commit message has "Closes-Bug" in it, add this boilerplate | |
| 10:49:32 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: i would really like to avoid that | |
| 10:49:38 | stephenfin | I mean, we don't say "this bugfix has o.vo implications so you're not allowed backport it" in a commit | |
| 10:49:40 | sean-k-mooney | we coudld but i dont see the point | |
| 10:50:11 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: bauzas we could update the contibutor guide or somehting to call it out i guess | |
| 10:50:11 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: the point is that I'm afraid stable core reviewers could miss such tiny bits that would break | |
| 10:50:23 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: but it would not pass ci | |
| 10:50:31 | sean-k-mooney | so it wont get merged at least | |
| 10:50:32 | bauzas | fortunately, in this specific case, agreed, CI won't run | |
| 10:50:37 | stephenfin | Fortunately, as sean-k-mooney points out, this will raise a SyntaxError on python 2.7 | |
| 10:50:38 | sean-k-mooney | but they might not know why | |
| 10:50:56 | stephenfin | heh, yeah 0:) | |
| 10:51:00 | bauzas | this | |
| 10:51:10 | stephenfin | how a contributor guide change? | |
| 10:51:10 | bauzas | honestly, I don't want to bikeshed | |
| 10:51:12 | stephenfin | *about | |
| 10:51:29 | bauzas | you know what ? I'll just approve the change | |
| 10:51:31 | stephenfin | Do we have a backporting section in that? | |
| 10:51:44 | bauzas | and then people who backport should just see my comment in the review | |
| 10:51:50 | stephenfin | \o/ WFM too :) | |
| 10:52:00 | bauzas | if they don't, then I'll kill them | |
| 10:52:06 | bauzas | seriously | |
| 10:52:50 | bauzas | stephenfin: but for a second, we unnecesseraly added complexity to the existing code by adding a linter check | |
| 10:53:14 | bauzas | I could have -1d it by saying 'sorry dude, unrelated to the change' | |
| 10:53:37 | bauzas | stephenfin: so, please refrain yourself to add more than what's necessary ;) :D | |
| 10:53:46 | stephenfin | ooooorrr, we're reducing complexity by removing the need to worry about types | |
| 10:53:53 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: i could argure the opiste | |
| 10:54:07 | stephenfin | let the compute do the work for you | |
| 10:54:09 | sean-k-mooney | if you dont add it and added it in a seperate change that is adding uneesisary overhead in revew | |
| 10:54:11 | stephenfin | *computer | |
| 10:54:25 | stephenfin | agreed | |
| 10:54:39 | stephenfin | if I wasn't changing the function signature, this would be unrelated | |
| 10:54:47 | stephenfin | but because I am, this is a fair change | |
| 10:54:54 | sean-k-mooney | anyway stephen are you going to chekc the hugepage/file backed memeory thing or will i doit | |
| 10:55:23 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: If you've time, go for it. I'm going to lunch shortly as I'm in meetings most of this afternoon :( | |
| 10:55:28 | stephenfin | If not, I'll aim to do it before EOD | |
| 10:55:46 | sean-k-mooney | well i want to understand this so that i can figure out how this relates to numa in placmenet | |
| 10:56:03 | sean-k-mooney | so ill try and doit shortly | |
| 10:57:06 | sean-k-mooney | file backed memroy will have to be reported on the ROOT RP | |
| 10:57:18 | sean-k-mooney | since it has no real numa affintiy | |
| 10:59:44 | gibi | I think we can trust the stable cores to see if a code is not py2 compatible | |
| 11:00:22 | sean-k-mooney | the fact that we are not using six anymore will liekly cause more issue then type hints | |
| 11:00:34 | gibi | also if there is such code that valid for py2 and py3 but behaves differently, then during the master review we have to make sure we add enough unit test coverage that will break when the patch is blindy backported to py2 | |