| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-04-21 | |||
| 08:26:38 | gibi | Uggla: added some extra information about the notification work in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/833669 let me know if you have questions | |
| 08:28:19 | Uggla | gibi, thx I will have a look. | |
| 08:42:29 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Attach Manila shares via virtiofs (db+object) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/831193 | |
| 08:42:30 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Attach Manila shares via virtiofs (manila abstraction) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/831194 | |
| 08:42:30 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Attach Manila shares via virtiofs (drivers) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/833090 | |
| 08:42:31 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Attach Manila shares via virtiofs (api) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/836830 | |
| 08:52:24 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Record SRIOV PF MAC in the binding profile https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/829248 | |
| 09:43:58 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Follow up for nova-manage image property commands https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/830895 | |
| 09:45:47 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/wallaby: Reproduce bug 1945310 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/811414 | |
| 09:45:48 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/wallaby: Query ports with admin client to get resource_request https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/811416 | |
| 10:22:45 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: if i have missed anythin or missrepresneted can you comment on http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-April/028268.html | |
| 10:23:36 | sean-k-mooney | im 99% sure that everything i said there is correct but i have not personally configured vGPUs so if you can confirm that woudl be good | |
| 10:58:07 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: I already replied ;) | |
| 10:58:18 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: but thanks for your reply | |
| 11:32:42 | kashyap | gibi[m]: Got a minute here? I'm going a bit mad with the unit test -- something is wrong here because the 'obj' is printing empty |
|
| 11:34:07 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Sync rootwrap.conf from oslo.rootwrap https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/823229 | |
| 11:35:01 | gibi | kashyap: will look in a minute | |
| 11:37:50 | kashyap | No rush | |
| 12:09:58 | opendevreview | Wenping Song proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Usage of new trait of OWNER_NOVA https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/819510 | |
| 12:23:48 | gibi | kashyap: now looking :) | |
| 12:24:08 | kashyap | Cool; I'm sure it's something stupid that I'm not parsing myself :D | |
| 12:27:29 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: just pushed my comment for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/819510 but i see the also just pushed an update... | |
| 12:29:43 | gibi | kashyap: at least I can reproduce your problem locally :) | |
| 12:30:10 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I will look back to the spec | |
| 12:30:27 | kashyap | gibi: Yeah. I wonder where I'm messing up the parsing here | |
| 12:31:28 | sean-k-mooney | songwenping_: can you look at my comment on patchset 5 | |
| 12:32:25 | sean-k-mooney | songwenping_: if you can respin the spec with those changes i think it would me mergable, please also include my version of the upgrade impact section | |
| 12:33:01 | sean-k-mooney | its imporant to call out the depenecy on upgrading placement before nova so that the new standard traits are aviable | |
| 12:33:50 | gibi | kashyap: your test code calls https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/dc30a7e6d19509ce34cb89ffcdb4ff2c36469d89/nova/virt/libvirt/config.py#L75 that is pretty empty | |
| 12:34:13 | gibi | wait, no | |
| 12:34:19 | gibi | hang on | |
| 12:35:18 | gibi | :D | |
| 12:35:41 | gibi | it correctly calls nova.virt.libvirt.config.LibvirtConfigCPU.parse_dom | |
| 12:37:46 | kashyap | Yea, did you put a breakpoint() to see it | |
| 12:39:52 | kashyap | All I want to assert is that the test is parsing the <cpu> element correctly. So assert for the presence of 'model' / 'vendor' etc? | |
| 12:42:22 | gibi | does nova use LibvirtConfigCPU to parse xml? I only see existing tests that verify to_xml but no parse_dom | |
| 12:45:19 | gibi | it seems that parsing code in LibvirtConfigCPU.parse_dom is either incorrect or the example XML you use is incorrect | |
| 12:45:20 | kashyap | gibi: Yeah, I didn't find any of parse_dom either | |
| 12:46:10 | gibi | the parser code assumes that everything is directly under <cpu> but in your example XML the tags are under cpu/mode | |
| 12:46:13 | kashyap | gibi: The example XML is ... trimmed down output from running `virsh domcapabilities` on my computer | |
| 12:46:56 | gibi | so the exta nesting by "mode" is makes the parse_dom to find nothing to match | |
| 12:47:07 | kashyap | gibi: Run `virsh domcapabilities` and you'll see tags under several modes | |
| 12:47:58 | gibi | then you need to handle the extra mode nesting in the parse_dom code | |
| 12:48:39 | gibi | but be aware that the to_xml code also emits the xml without the extra mode nesting right now | |
| 12:48:50 | kashyap | gibi: Hmm, I see. So, here's a test you do: the "everything under <cpu>" from `virsh capabilities` | |
| 12:49:02 | kashyap | So carefully run these two commands and compare the <cpu> bits: | |
| 12:49:30 | kashyap | - virsh capabilities # notice the <cpu> — everything is under it; and it has no "policy" for features | |
| 12:49:30 | kashyap | - virsh capabilities # notice the <cpu> — everything is under it; and it has no "policy" for features | |
| 12:49:51 | kashyap | - virsh domcapabilities # notice the <cpu> and compare w/ the above | |
| 12:50:25 | gibi | yeah I see | |
| 12:50:40 | gibi | so capabilities emits different structure than domcapabilities | |
| 12:50:53 | kashyap | Yes, indeed. | |
| 12:50:56 | gibi | so probably we need a different config object to parse the two different model | |
| 12:51:18 | gibi | as I assume nova still uses getCapabilities even after we start using getDomCapabitilies | |
| 12:51:39 | gibi | or can we simply ignore the mode part of the domcapabilities? | |
| 12:51:54 | gibi | as we can assume that mode is host-model | |
| 12:52:34 | gibi | I have to step away from the keyboard for a while now but I will be back later this afternoon | |
| 12:52:48 | kashyap | Sure, no prob | |
| 12:55:14 | kashyap | I think we can ignore the mode part here, as we indeed know that it's of 'host-model' | |
| 12:55:18 | kashyap | And that works | |
| 12:57:31 | kashyap | gibi: When you're back: indeed, putting the stuff under <cpu> does resolve the test prob. (Also, near as I see, I don't think we need a diff config object) | |
| 13:04:41 | sean-k-mooney | form a consitncy point of view we should have different config objects | |
| 13:04:53 | sean-k-mooney | we have one config object per element type in the xml | |
| 13:05:13 | sean-k-mooney | so we shoudl not use the same python object to parse both the dom caps and normal caps | |
| 13:05:27 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: ^ | |
| 13:05:35 | sean-k-mooney | so i agree with gibi here | |
| 13:06:13 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: There already exists a config object for domCaps | |
| 13:06:32 | kashyap | Also, Gibi was wondering out loud, and was not asking. I'll dig a bit more and see what's required here. | |
| 13:06:40 | sean-k-mooney | ack | |
| 13:13:34 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/xena: Reattach mdevs to guest on resume https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/821126 | |
| 13:51:33 | gibi | sean-k-mooney, kashyap: if we can always treat caps and domcaps as equivalent with the assumption of mode host-mode in case of domcaps, then I'm OK to keep a single config object for both | |
| 13:54:33 | gibi | more preciesly *if we can treat the cpu part of caps and domcaps | |
| 13:55:57 | kashyap | gibi: Good point. A related thing, that you've noticed yourself, is domCaps also reports "policy" | |
| 13:57:08 | kashyap | gibi: And I _don't_ think we can treat the CPU part of caps and domCaps as same ... because, here, see the diff in features from both, from my laptop - they're not equal: | |
| 14:00:05 | kashyap | gibi: https://paste.opendev.org/show/bvMLvWCzjusOKOyzgsOi/ | |
| 14:00:22 | kashyap | They're not equal, you see | |
| 14:00:55 | kashyap | (Ignore line-1, it's accidental) | |
| 14:01:37 | gibi | ahh, I see, if we cannot ignore the diff as we depend on the topology for example | |
| 14:01:58 | kashyap | Lemme check with Jiri Denemark from libvirt | |
| 14:02:00 | gibi | so I have to side with sean-k-mooney that we need to split the config model | |
| 14:02:51 | gibi | and we can add helpers to move data between caps and domcaps object when needed | |
| 14:03:08 | gibi | kashyap: sure, more viewpoint helps | |
| 14:06:02 | sean-k-mooney | the feature listed in virsh capabliteis are the cpu feature on the host | |
| 14:06:24 | sean-k-mooney | and the model listed is the closes standard model to the host feature set | |
| 14:06:45 | kashyap | Yeah, as I wrote in my small primer on differences: | |
| 14:06:50 | sean-k-mooney | wehn we use dom caps that actully provides what will be used by the vm when that model is selected | |
| 14:07:04 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: No, not "what will be used by the VM" - rather: | |
| 14:07:43 | sean-k-mooney | its providing the content of what we will be generted in the libvirt domain xml | |
| 14:07:48 | sean-k-mooney | if we requested host model | |
| 14:08:15 | sean-k-mooney | which is what i ment by "what will be used" in my previous sentence | |
| 14:08:16 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: It answers two questions: (a) whether a feature is supported by the host; and (b) whether it is supported by a given QEMU binary running on the host | |
| 14:09:16 | sean-k-mooney | artom: gibi by the way i can confirm that https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/838871 fixes the unit test failures | |
| 14:09:52 | sean-k-mooney | so this backport https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:bug%252F1947370 | |
| 14:09:58 | sean-k-mooney | is what causes the lock path issues | |
| 14:10:14 | sean-k-mooney | the reviert is not nessisarly the correct approch | |
| 14:10:25 | sean-k-mooney | but the backport made a previously optional config option required | |
| 14:10:39 | sean-k-mooney | we neither set the config option in our test or the enviornmental variable | |
| 14:10:56 | sean-k-mooney | so strictly speaking i do no think os-brick shoudl have backported that change as written | |
| 14:11:40 | sean-k-mooney | it did not comply with satable policy since it requirs config to be updated. | |
| 14:11:53 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles:^ correct me if that is a wrong intepretation | |