| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-08-19 | |||
| 02:48:44 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Avoid n-cond startup abort for keystone failures https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/852901 | |
| 03:47:54 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: scheduler: Add an ephemeral encryption pre filter https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/760456 | |
| 08:02:38 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Test attached volume extend actions in the nova-next job https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/843700 | |
| 09:25:42 | sean-k-mooney | by the way i dont know if i have explained how im using Review-Prioity +1 and +2 but im adding my +2 if im going to priotities it and i would like others too also and im adding +1 when i am going to review it and it woudl be nice if other reviewed it but im not asking other cores to go out of there way to prioritise it i.e. its a nice to have | |
| 09:26:28 | sean-k-mooney | im also not alwasy setting it, im just setting it on patches that are either imporant or have not reablly been reviewed in a while to highlight them to others | |
| 09:27:30 | sean-k-mooney | for example i dont think this backport is critical https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/821349 but it would be nice to land sooner rather then later so RP +1 | |
| 09:29:05 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: by the way im currently working on the final patch in the vdpa seriese would you have time to review the first 3. i just need to add a release note and update the docs in the last patch and its also done | |
| 09:43:31 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: sure (y) | |
| 09:44:21 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: just pushing the last patch now once i fix the commti message so it should be ready by the time you get to it | |
| 09:46:26 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: Add VDPA support for suspend and livemigrate https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/853704 | |
| 09:47:21 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: ^ that should be ready for your review too. if ye have comments ill respin them collectinvly once ye have complete reviewing the whole sereise later today | |
| 09:49:52 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: ack, I will do a review round on it today | |
| 09:50:10 | sean-k-mooney | oh i have to fix 1 thing in the last patch for the compute service bump so ill respin that quickly | |
| 09:50:34 | gibi | (today I spent hours in a rabbit hole spreading provider mapping around the claim code, but now I'm backing out of it as it is a dead end) | |
| 09:54:11 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: Add VDPA support for suspend and livemigrate https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/853704 | |
| 09:54:42 | sean-k-mooney | i think you should just need to pass them to filter_pools | |
| 09:55:07 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. if you have the provider uuid in the pool filter pools can jsut filter to the ones it the alloctiaons | |
| 09:55:50 | sean-k-mooney | although that is proably over simplfying | |
| 09:56:36 | sean-k-mooney | i woudl be tempted to extend the pci request object to carry the RP infor that it shoudl be fullfiled form | |
| 09:56:50 | sean-k-mooney | and then use that latter when we are doing the filtering /caliming | |
| 09:57:07 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: would something like ^ work better | |
| 09:57:29 | sean-k-mooney | that woudl avoid chaning the sigurtures of any of the fuctions | |
| 09:57:38 | gibi | yeah I'm on this track | |
| 09:57:49 | gibi | the filter_pools needs it | |
| 09:58:01 | gibi | and we call that from 3 different places | |
| 09:58:08 | sean-k-mooney | but you would have to update teh request objecject before calling support/consume/apply | |
| 09:58:20 | gibi | 1) during scheduling (there we hace an allocation candidate to work with) | |
| 09:58:35 | gibi | 2) during claim (there we have the request spec to work with probably) | |
| 09:58:46 | gibi | 3) during consume (that is a big rabbit hole :D) | |
| 09:58:51 | gibi | but you are right | |
| 09:59:02 | gibi | the InstancePCIRequest could carry the PR uuid | |
| 09:59:15 | gibi | _after_ the scheduler made the allocation in placement | |
| 09:59:20 | gibi | as that is then fixed | |
| 09:59:24 | sean-k-mooney | well if save the updated request object after 1 when we claim the allcoation candiate then 2 and 3 can just read it from there | |
| 09:59:31 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 09:59:31 | gibi | yes | |
| 09:59:59 | sean-k-mooney | so i think that will work out cleanly in the end | |
| 10:00:02 | gibi | we did something similar for QoS with the parent_ifname tag in the InstancePCIRequest | |
| 10:00:24 | sean-k-mooney | ah yes that is indeed similar | |
| 10:00:44 | sean-k-mooney | as that narrowed the set of pools to consider | |
| 10:00:45 | gibi | the RP uuid is actually cleaner | |
| 10:01:01 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/xena: add regression test case for bug 1978983 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/853218 | |
| 10:01:01 | gibi | so eventually we can refactor the QoS path to use that too | |
| 10:01:17 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 10:01:40 | sean-k-mooney | once we start populating the rp uuid in the pci device tabel and pci_stat pools | |
| 10:02:10 | sean-k-mooney | for the pci devices are you going to add a new column for the rp_uuid | |
| 10:02:18 | sean-k-mooney | or just put it in the extra info column | |
| 10:02:26 | sean-k-mooney | i woudl be tempted to do the former | |
| 10:02:50 | sean-k-mooney | for the pools i would just put it in the json blob | |
| 10:03:00 | gibi | at the moment I don't see where I need the rp_uuid from the pci device, when I will see that I can consider this | |
| 10:03:12 | gibi | for the pools it is probably the blob | |
| 10:03:30 | sean-k-mooney | ya so i dont think we will evern need to do an sql query on the pools | |
| 10:03:38 | sean-k-mooney | that will alway be processed in python | |
| 10:03:53 | gibi | I thinks so too | |
| 10:03:56 | sean-k-mooney | but the pci devices it would be nice to have them correalated with the placment rp | |
| 10:04:34 | sean-k-mooney | so it would be nice to put it at least in extra_info blob | |
| 10:04:47 | sean-k-mooney | but you possibely coudl move the fitlering to sql | |
| 10:05:14 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. have filter pools intially get the candiate devcie with an sql query | |
| 10:05:34 | sean-k-mooney | alhtogh we have the pools in memory so i dont think that actully bys you much | |
| 10:05:47 | sean-k-mooney | so really i would jsut like it in the pci device tabel fro debugging | |
| 10:05:59 | sean-k-mooney | so extra info would be fine for that | |
| 10:10:18 | gibi | yeah without the rp_uuid there you have to look up the pci address from the dev and query placement by RP name | |
| 10:10:57 | gibi | I will see how this fits together but it probably make sense to add rp_uuid to the dev | |
| 10:12:09 | sean-k-mooney | ya this is a minor convince feature so we can see where it fits when you get to it | |
| 10:12:58 | sean-k-mooney | we lived without trackign the neutron port uuid in the requster_id for years | |
| 10:13:37 | sean-k-mooney | but due to recent evnets the more info we have for debuging things like this the happier i will be | |
| 10:14:06 | opendevreview | Arnaud Morin proposed openstack/nova master: Unbind port when offloading a shelved instance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/853682 | |
| 10:16:51 | amorin | sean-k-mooney ^ I wrote both unit + functional tests | |
| 10:17:01 | sean-k-mooney | thanks ill review it shortly | |
| 10:17:04 | amorin | I also patch one of your tests to make it work | |
| 10:17:16 | amorin | no hurries, thanks! | |
| 10:18:16 | sean-k-mooney | ah yes test_shelve for remote managed ports | |
| 10:52:02 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/xena: For evacuation, ignore if task_state is not None https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/853219 | |
| 10:56:55 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I did a review round on the vdpa series, the last patch needs some func test coverage for live migration but other than that I'm happy | |
| 11:02:38 | tobias-urdin | from what I understand nova's policy code restricts POST /os-external-server-events requests to only be allowed from the admin endpoint, how is that enforced? referring to issue mentioned in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1640443 | |
| 11:02:56 | tobias-urdin | i'm trying to understand if that change is still required and valid or if that fix can be reverted | |
| 11:03:03 | tobias-urdin | to using, for example, the internal endpoint instead | |
| 11:04:39 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: or right good point ill add that | |
| 11:05:31 | sean-k-mooney | tobias-urdin: the external events api is not only admin only but intended to be called only by other services | |
| 11:05:39 | sean-k-mooney | tobias-urdin: as in admin shoudl never call it directly | |
| 11:06:17 | sean-k-mooney | using the internal endpoint is fine you the calling service jsut need to use the admin clint | |
| 11:06:24 | sean-k-mooney | but old cinder did not do that properly | |
| 11:07:43 | sean-k-mooney | so if cinder have actully fixed there code to use the admin client to call the external events api instead of trying to use the user token then it can be revierted but the change in ooo was jsut a workaround for a bug in cinder | |
| 11:08:24 | sean-k-mooney | nova has never required /os-external-server-events to use the admin endpoint | |
| 11:08:31 | tobias-urdin | ah, the logic was enforced by cinder I see! that's why I couldn't figure it out, my bad | |
| 11:08:35 | tobias-urdin | thx | |
| 11:08:49 | sean-k-mooney | well not enforced they just had a bug | |
| 11:09:06 | tobias-urdin | ack | |
| 11:09:09 | sean-k-mooney | they tried to use teh users token that requsted the volume extend to send the external event | |
| 11:09:21 | sean-k-mooney | instead of using an admin token | |
| 11:09:44 | sean-k-mooney | by using the admin endpoint they bypassed the admin check | |
| 11:23:31 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: based on your questions regarding suspend and the compute service bump i realise i need a compute service bump for attach/detach. suspend can use the same one as migrate but attach/detach needs one too. so ill adress all your nit as part of that too | |
| 11:40:21 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: done | |
| 11:48:37 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: thanks ill respine them shortly | |
| 11:55:54 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: ack, good point | |
| 11:59:37 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: i really would prefer to use the asserts by the way | |
| 12:00:02 | stephenfin | You shouldn't though. You've already highlighted the risks of doing so | |
| 12:00:04 | sean-k-mooney | i dont want to check this at runtime but do want to prevent you breaking the tests with bad mocks/fixtures | |
| 12:00:26 | stephenfin | Then just raise a NovaException and don't handle it | |
| 12:00:42 | sean-k-mooney | but that is not the behaivor i want | |