| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-11-08 | |||
| 08:34:07 | zigo | FYI, I've run latest point release exactly, not tip of stable branches. | |
| 08:34:09 | gibi | what level of parallelism do you use in your env? | |
| 08:34:53 | zigo | I have 4 VCPU, so I'm guessing, 4 threads for running tests. | |
| 08:35:43 | zigo | When I look in "top" with the server being idle, I have only 1.2 GB used by my Jenkins env. | |
| 08:35:53 | zigo | So that's 6.8 GB available for building. | |
| 08:37:54 | gibi | ack | |
| 08:47:17 | frickler | zigo: the CI nodes also use only 8GB, so likely some other delta. can you share the complete oom and the test output? I assume this is on bookworm? we could try to test with that in CI instead of noble/jammy | |
| 08:47:43 | zigo | Yes, I'm running on Bookworm, with a chroot & sbuild. | |
| 08:54:15 | zigo | frickler: It killed "java" (ie: my jenkins...), so you wont see anything in the OOM kill log. | |
| 08:55:19 | zigo | The build log, however, looks like in that conversion unit test thing... | |
| 08:55:23 | zigo | 95.12% done, estimate finish Fri Nov 8 08:19:53 2024 | |
| 08:55:23 | zigo | 97.02% done, estimate finish Fri Nov 8 08:19:53 2024 | |
| 08:55:23 | zigo | 98.93% done, estimate finish Fri Nov 8 08:19:53 2024 | |
| 08:55:59 | zigo | Looks like it's finishing the test, finishes to write stuff, and then OOM killer kicks in. | |
| 08:58:02 | zigo | So, this would likely be related to the new image inspector unit tests. | |
| 10:39:04 | gibi | zigo: I checked 27.3.0 and 27.5.1 with py39, 4 cores, and the unit test run in both cases takes a max of 1.7GB memory. | |
| 10:39:24 | gibi | so I did not see an increase in consumption | |
| 11:35:20 | zigo | gibi: Oh ok, thanks for the tests, I'm therefore not sure what happened, and will try to investigate. | |
| 15:27:27 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.2: Reproduce bug 2085975 in functional https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934305 | |
| 15:27:28 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.2: Route shared storage RPC to evac dest at startup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934306 | |
| 15:27:29 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.2: [Stable-Only]Make CastAsCall configurable https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934434 | |
| 15:30:20 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.1: Reproduce bug 2085975 in functional https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934308 | |
| 15:30:21 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.1: Route shared storage RPC to evac dest at startup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934309 | |
| 15:30:22 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.1: [Stable-Only]Make CastAsCall configurable https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934435 | |
| 18:58:49 | opendevreview | Jan Gutter proposed openstack/placement master: DNM -- testing fix in external PR https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/926743 | |
| 19:18:45 | opendevreview | Richard Gold proposed openstack/placement master: Use separate transaction in capacity check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/934451 | |
| 21:07:13 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova-specs master: fix footnote refernces https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/934493 | |
| 21:12:52 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova-specs master: fix footnote refernces https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/934493 | |
| 21:31:19 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Re-propose config option for behavior of unset unified limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/934391 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-11-09 | |||
| 01:48:13 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova master: Drop remaining logic for websockify < 0.9.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934517 | |
| 01:49:22 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova master: Drop remaining logic for websockify < 0.9.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934517 | |
| 09:33:49 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Add flavor scanning to migrate_to_unified_limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924110 | |
| 23:25:03 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Add flavor scanning to migrate_to_unified_limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924110 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-11-10 | |||
| 02:08:08 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add [quota]unified_limits_required_resources list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924025 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-11-11 | |||
| 01:30:44 | opendevreview | Si Snow proposed openstack/nova master: Improve the use of castellan.key_manager https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934225 | |
| 03:24:32 | opendevreview | Si Snow proposed openstack/nova master: Improve the use of castellan.key_manager https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934225 | |
| 05:44:09 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Remove default override for config options policy_file https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934578 | |
| 10:05:18 | ratailor | #openstack-nova Can I get attention on my open patches, some of those are having +1 from zuul but waiting for reviews from cores. | |
| 10:05:33 | ratailor | https://review.opendev.org/q/owner:ratailor@redhat.com+status:open | |
| 10:06:28 | ratailor | specially https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/928933 where api-samples tests are failing, I tried to debug, but couldn't get what's missing. It would be great if anyone having expertise in api-samples could help there. | |
| 12:42:38 | gibi | ratailor: added hints | |
| 12:43:39 | ratailor | gibi. Thanks! | |
| 12:43:58 | ratailor | but there is no api action yet, because nowhere finish method of instance action is called as of now. | |
| 12:44:41 | ratailor | that's why its the first patch in bp to add support for showing the same to user in show api response. | |
| 12:47:45 | gibi | ratailor: do you mean that the finish_time is always None after your first patch? If so then the template for the api test should expect None not an strtime | |
| 12:48:11 | gibi | ratailor: but also we tend to order the patches differently to have the API change as the last one in the series. | |
| 12:48:11 | ratailor | gibi, let me check if version bump resolves this. | |
| 12:48:25 | gibi | the version bump only resolves some of the tests, the version api tests | |
| 12:48:39 | ratailor | this is the only patch for implementation | |
| 12:49:07 | ratailor | but we have strtime for other time related fields, like start_time, updated_at etc. | |
| 12:52:09 | ratailor | gibi, also could you please review other patches, which are waiting for review since some time https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873901 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/911108 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/901810 | |
| 12:52:49 | gibi | ratailor: I could not commit to other reviews right now. | |
| 12:53:03 | gibi | but lets discuss the finish_time further as I'm confused | |
| 12:53:19 | ratailor | gibi, whenever you have time later, but please add those to your review list. :) | |
| 12:53:26 | ratailor | gibi, yea, sure. | |
| 12:53:39 | gibi | 13:44 < ratailor> that's why its the first patch in bp to add support for showing the same to user in show api response. | |
| 12:53:42 | gibi | vs | |
| 12:53:48 | gibi | ratailor> this is the only patch for implementation | |
| 12:54:06 | gibi | so will there be other patches in the bp? | |
| 12:55:36 | ratailor | no, for nova this is only patch. and if osc and sdk related changes are required, then those also. | |
| 12:55:47 | gibi | or is this just adding a field to the API that is always None? | |
| 12:55:56 | ratailor | so long story short, we have this lp https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2058928 which required to call finish method of instnace action, which we don't do currently. | |
| 12:56:29 | ratailor | there is already finish_time field in InstanceAction object, but we don't show it to user in instance action show api response. | |
| 12:57:13 | ratailor | so this bp is just to add support for showing finish_time in instnace action show response. | |
| 12:58:08 | ratailor | after that there will be series of patches, to call finish method of instance action, where we start the action, but don't finish yet (which is case of every api where instance_action start mthod is called). | |
| 12:58:19 | ratailor | so currently this is the case | |
| 12:58:19 | ratailor | https://paste.opendev.org/show/bKShu6Vcc0Q9Ej4nzZgj/ | |
| 13:00:33 | gibi | ratailor: OK. So it does mean that after the new microversion finish_time will be None for all responses unitl the further patches are added to actully call action_finish. | |
| 13:00:47 | ratailor | gibi, yes. | |
| 13:00:54 | gibi | then 1) you need to change the api sample template to expect None instead of strtime | |
| 13:01:30 | ratailor | gibi, but do we need to change it to strtime once we start calling finish method of instnace action for any api. | |
| 13:01:37 | gibi | 2) at some point in the future patches that test will fail as it will start returning a time instead of None which is problematic a bit but I need to see how others feel about that | |
| 13:01:49 | gibi | hence my point of ordering of patches | |
| 13:02:09 | gibi | I would rather expose a field in the API after that field has meaningful value | |
| 13:02:22 | ratailor | but the bp required only one patch to expose the field to user. | |
| 13:02:46 | ratailor | the field is already there, we are just missing the functionality to show it to user. | |
| 13:03:54 | gibi | bauzas: sean-k-mooney: dansmith: ^^ any oppinion about the ordering here? The https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/928933 would expose instance action finish_time in a new microversion but at that point the field would be always None and later patches will add the population of finish_time. | |
| 13:05:07 | gibi | ratailor: showing always None to the user is not useful in my eyes. It becomes useful as soon as it can be not None. Maybe you can add one patches that calls finish for at least one action and then test the API via that action. | |
| 13:05:19 | sean-k-mooney | i feel like there is littel point in exposing it until it works | |
| 13:05:28 | sean-k-mooney | so to me that should be the last patch | |
| 13:06:26 | ratailor | gibi, yes, that's not useful. | |
| 13:07:21 | ratailor | gibi, sean-k-mooney ack. I will prepare one patch for any api and see if that works. And if it requires all patches, then I will add as many as required for other apis. | |
| 13:08:41 | ratailor | gibi, sean-k-mooney Thanks for your suggestions. Also please provide your reviews on other patches. | |
| 13:18:33 | gibi | ratailor: I think the action list tests creates a VM and stops it. If you fix those first the the api sample test will probably work. | |
| 13:19:12 | ratailor | gibi, ack. sure. | |
| 13:21:21 | ratailor | gibi, I will then try to add finish call to stop api first and see how it goes. | |
| 13:21:50 | ratailor | gibi, Thanks for the hint. :) | |
| 13:50:26 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova master: Fix instance vm_state during shelve https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934294 | |
| 14:24:53 | dansmith | gibi: agree, no point until it's useful | |
| 14:35:15 | gibi | sean-k-mooney, dansmith: thanks for chiming in, that was my immediate feeling as well | |
| 15:06:18 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: fix footnote refernces https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/934493 | |
| 15:20:59 | moot | Hello ! I am having trouble with my GPU being detected as netdev when trying to setup vgpu managed by nova, I am on caracal. | |
| 15:20:59 | moot | When trying to understand what could have gone wrong I stumbled across this bit of code and I am wondering if there is an indentation error : https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/2024.1/nova/virt/libvirt/host.py#L1487-L1489 | |
| 15:20:59 | moot | If there is not, I am really not sure about what can cause thoses errors : | |
| 15:20:59 | moot | "Could not get a PF mac for 0000:41:00.0 _get_sriov_netdev_details /var/lib/kolla/venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nova/virt/libvirt/host.py:1455" | |
| 15:20:59 | moot | "Cannot get MAC address of the PF 0000:41:00.0. It is probably attached to a guest already _get_pf_details /var/lib/kolla/venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nova/virt/libvirt/host.py:1318" | |
| 15:22:33 | sean-k-mooney | so there are two factors, first in the pci dev-spec its imporant to make sure you have not set physical_netork on teh entry for the gpus | |
| 15:23:01 | sean-k-mooney | second i belive in newer release of nova that is just a warning not an error | |
| 15:23:25 | sean-k-mooney | 2024.1 should not error out for example | |
| 15:25:32 | zigo | Mickael is already running Caracal. | |