Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2022-03-11
10:18:32 elodilles but the team is here, so there will be surely someone who can help in :)
10:19:05 elodilles will it be a big family - tesla tour around France? :)
10:24:27 opendevreview changxin xiao proposed openstack/nova master: Fix openstack/nova git repo https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1964548 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/833248
10:28:18 bauzas elodilles: just the usual annual family holidays with 2 weeks in Corsica, indeed
10:28:45 elodilles that's also sounds relaxing :)
10:42:05 bauzas with 2 kids ? not exactly relaxing
10:42:16 bauzas but at least, it's called "holidays"
10:42:38 bauzas the only change is I won't dad taxi every day
10:44:11 opendevreview Maxim Korezkij proposed openstack/nova master: fixup! Handle volume attachments https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/833257
10:45:39 opendevreview Maxim Korezkij proposed openstack/nova master: Handle volume attachments https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/833234
11:57:53 elodilles bauzas: let's say, different kind of relaxing :D
12:46:50 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova stable/yoga: [stable-only] Update .gitreview for stable/yoga https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/833241
12:51:51 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova stable/yoga: [stable-only] Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/yoga https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/833242
13:55:23 opendevreview Erlon R. Cruz proposed openstack/nova master: Adds regression test for bug LP#1944619 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/833166
13:55:24 opendevreview Erlon R. Cruz proposed openstack/nova master: Fix pre_live_migration rollback https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/815324
14:01:32 bauzas huzzah, we now have master be Zed :)
14:01:46 bauzas thanks elodilles
14:02:07 chateaulav all hail Zed
14:29:39 dansmith kashyap: I wonder if you might be interested in chasing a CI failure I've seen a couple times on centos jobs, where we ask libvirt to detach a volume, and it just never happens
14:30:14 dansmith it's just, AFAICT, a simple file-based volume so I dunno if it's a guest refusing to let it go or what
14:36:22 kashyap dansmith: Got a bug or a link? (Detach volume sucks the marrow out of my life ... but got used to it :D)
14:36:35 dansmith yeah, lemme get one
14:39:00 kashyap Is it this one? - https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1960346
14:41:57 dansmith kashyap: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/87df2018e335440f830b08fe1a05bfb7/logs
14:42:29 dansmith kashyap: ah, looks like it!
14:43:15 kashyap Okay, I was hoping: "Oh, not again, not a new one" -- me and Gibi recently spent a few days chasing it down
14:43:18 dansmith so what's the outcome there? it looks like just making a centos job non-voting :)
14:45:04 kashyap There was a direct thread about it w/ libvirt folks. We had two hypotheses:
14:45:30 kashyap (Actually I noted both in the bug. Lemme look what's the current status)
14:45:56 kashyap dansmith: Okay, to summarize, our two hypotheses were these:
14:45:56 kashyap 1) the guest OS didn't confirm the detach
14:45:57 kashyap 2) there was a recent bug in QEMU triggered by using JSON syntax for `-device`
14:46:05 kashyap It turns out to be #1
14:46:22 dansmith but why does this seem to only happen on the centos jobs? it's all the same cirros in the guest right?
14:46:25 kashyap For now, we've hacked around it by adding extra delay :-(
14:47:19 dansmith are you talking about the wait_until=SSHABLE patches in terms of the delay?
14:47:42 kashyap dansmith: Good question! Damned if I know, why it's happening only on CentOS jobs. (I'm tempted to say "something to do w/ virt-package versions")
14:48:16 kashyap dansmith: No, that's the bigger thing that's not merged yet (IIRC). There was a 120-sec delay patch from Gibi ... lemme look
14:48:18 dansmith because I think it's still happening, AFAICT
14:48:26 dansmith oh jeez, 120s?
14:48:34 sean-k-mooney kashyap: the centos 9 stream jobs are much much newer version fo libvirt and qemu vs ubuntu
14:49:06 sean-k-mooney i think sshable has merged or mostly merged in the last day or two
14:49:12 dansmith right, which is why I'm not sure how we could ever really run on something so bleeding edge where we need stability
14:49:22 sean-k-mooney im not sure if all of the patches are landed but there was proggess on them
14:49:44 dansmith sean-k-mooney: that landed on 3/3 I think
14:49:45 sean-k-mooney well its the same version we will be releaseing stable wallaby on downstream
14:50:06 sean-k-mooney also ubuntu 22.04 will have similar version when it releases
14:50:24 sean-k-mooney so its kind of good that centos 9 stream is catching this
14:51:29 dansmith sean-k-mooney: doesn't stream9's version track upstream closer, like almost constantly moving?
14:51:49 kashyap Not quite; it is the "upstream of RHEL"
14:52:00 kashyap So not as bleeding as Fedora, but not as "stable" as RHEL either
14:52:07 sean-k-mooney dansmith: the pacakges are older the fedora but newer then rhel but not by much
14:52:13 kashyap So you might get the worst of everything w/ Stream :D
14:52:20 dansmith heh
14:53:00 sean-k-mooney effectivly stream is what would be in the next point release of rhel
14:53:23 dansmith well, I'd be concerned if we're adding sleeps to paper over something that would be a real problem with the host triggering the guest to release the block device
14:53:36 dansmith seems like something must have changed if the guest is identical
14:53:46 sean-k-mooney dansmith: the sleep was to see if it was related to the kernel booting
14:53:50 sean-k-mooney not an actual fix
14:53:56 sean-k-mooney before the sshable serires landed
14:54:05 dansmith sean-k-mooney: ah okay I thought kashyap was suggesting that was the workaround
14:54:07 sean-k-mooney at least that was my understanding
14:54:11 dansmith [06:46:25] <kashyap> For now, we've hacked around it by adding extra delay :-(
14:54:19 dansmith this ^ but maybe that's not what he meant
14:54:40 sean-k-mooney the sleep i belive was in tempest not nova if its the patch im thinking of
14:54:51 kashyap dansmith: Sorry, I should've been clearer; I don't see the 120sec patch in tree; but I swear Gibi mentioned it in a thread
14:55:45 dansmith sean-k-mooney: yeah I assumed tempest
14:55:58 kashyap sean-k-mooney: For the SSHable series to land, "someone" (a body) needs to shepherd it...Not sure who has the will for it
14:56:15 sean-k-mooney kashyap: gmann took it over
14:56:19 sean-k-mooney i think its landed already
14:56:27 dansmith yeah it's already merged
14:56:46 dansmith and I still see fails, like this one I think from five days later:
14:56:57 dansmith https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/ee63e247893c42a69e096e14f4305850
14:57:01 dansmith I haven't dug into that one yet but looks the same
14:58:00 sean-k-mooney ya we did not know if the sshable woudl fix it we just hoped it woudl reduce the issue. we saw some cases where test wer doing attach, detach and live migrate all before the kernel was at thet login prompt form the inital boot
14:58:26 sean-k-mooney and the kernel then crashed during the migration
14:58:55 dansmith okay, but nova retries things like the volume detach like ten times,
14:59:10 dansmith so I would expect that would resolve that race for detach right/
14:59:12 sean-k-mooney ya so we need to remove that retry
14:59:36 sean-k-mooney gibi and i spoke about this a while ago
14:59:58 sean-k-mooney kashyap: can proably verify but i think qemu now considers it an error to detach an already detaching vloume
15:00:00 dansmith is libvirt/qemu only requesting the guest drop it once? because subsequent ones seem to be a libvirt refusal to try again
15:00:16 dansmith yeah I see that error in the logs after the first attempt
15:00:50 sean-k-mooney ya so it used to be undefiend behavior that on some release aborted the detach then qemu started rejecting it and
15:00:55 kashyap sean-k-mooney: Yes, that's right - a device that is already being unplugged, QEMU will consider another attempt at it an error
15:01:03 sean-k-mooney im not really sure what the intended behavior is now
15:01:26 dansmith so .. what to do? if the guest isn't ready to handle the signal we're just screwed until reboot or something?
15:01:29 dansmith that seems pretty broken
15:02:21 sean-k-mooney i dont know honestly. i dont think we want to do what we did in the past for snapshot which was stop and start the vm
15:02:28 sean-k-mooney when live snapshots were not possible
15:02:36 dansmith yeah :/
15:02:43 sean-k-mooney other then that i dont know of a way to force this form nova
15:02:52 dansmith but again, I'm still curious about why this seems to only happen on centos hosts
15:03:03 dansmith unless you think that behavior changed between 20.04's libvirt and now?
15:03:12 sean-k-mooney we were seeign it on ubuntu too with q35
15:03:19 kashyap dansmith: So, this was the DNM patch of 120sec delay: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/devstack/+/828705/8/.zuul.yaml
15:03:39 sean-k-mooney i dont think we have seen this with pc and ubuntu
15:03:52 dansmith sean-k-mooney: oh, are the centos jobs all q35 by default?
15:04:03 sean-k-mooney no i dont think so
15:04:04 kashyap The thing is, CirrOS needs 10 sec to boot in our CI, but Nova returns "ACTIVE" when the guest spawns.

Earlier   Later