Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2025-03-12
17:58:15 Uggla sean-k-mooney, no created it only today.
17:58:31 sean-k-mooney i guess im thinking fo the conducotr change
17:59:15 sean-k-mooney this https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942146/7/nova/conductor/tasks/live_migrate.py#244
17:59:42 Uggla oh yes sorry.
17:59:52 sean-k-mooney how were you teting this without that change in the move claims?
18:01:26 sean-k-mooney oh
18:01:27 Uggla This was tested with a unit tests and the fn tests were ok because all the live migration tests were done without numa VM.
18:01:45 sean-k-mooney no but you tested this manually
18:01:49 sean-k-mooney with real hardware
18:02:05 sean-k-mooney oh....
18:02:14 Uggla not real hardware was fine too, because I use a non numa vm.
18:02:20 sean-k-mooney that why gibi was askign about numa
18:02:39 sean-k-mooney that move claim code was orgianl ment to work for non numa instance too...
18:02:52 sean-k-mooney i guess that was just alway broken then
18:02:59 Uggla yep, I discovered that this morning, then "pass" the ball to gibi.
18:03:15 sean-k-mooney got it
18:03:38 sean-k-mooney for the record i still hate everyting about claims and still want to burn them with fire
18:03:39 Uggla because I could not understand why it was working fine without numa and failed with numa.
18:05:16 sean-k-mooney you should see this fail in the funtional test if you enabled hugepages or cpu pinning
18:05:22 sean-k-mooney we can add test coverage for that
18:05:27 Uggla @sean-k-mooney, ha ha, openstack claims game of thrones.
18:05:57 Uggla I saw the issue with the new fn tests this morning, because I enabled cpu pinning.
18:06:08 sean-k-mooney i strongly objected to extending claims when we added numa live migration which is why i didnt use them when adding sriov live migration in the same cycle
18:06:22 sean-k-mooney Uggla: oh ok cool
18:09:34 Uggla sean-k-mooney, in fact I leverage "your" test_live_migrate_server_with_neutron to do a mix test with port request and flavor based request.
18:10:26 bauzas cores, I need your help for paperwork changes RC1 : https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/943948
18:10:36 bauzas ditto for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/943952
18:10:49 sean-k-mooney Uggla: shoudl we be keepign this https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944105/1/nova/tests/unit/compute/test_claims.py#b375 but updating it to show it nolonger raise
18:11:06 sean-k-mooney bauzas: im going to finish soon but ill take a look now
18:11:29 bauzas also, I'd like cores to review our cycle highlights https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943801
18:11:52 bauzas and nothing urgent but I'd appreciate https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/944019
18:13:20 bauzas and we need a second core for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942871 (libvirt/qemu bump)
18:13:22 Uggla bauzas, reminder about 942871: Bump MIN_{LIBVIRT,QEMU} for "Epoxy" | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942871 to not forget it.
18:13:40 bauzas Uggla: jinxed !
18:13:55 sean-k-mooney bauzas: you havnt updated https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943801/2/deliverables/epoxy/nova.yaml based on what already there
18:14:19 bauzas sean-k-mooney: that's litterally my next action item
18:14:26 sean-k-mooney ah
18:14:27 bauzas even at 7:15pm
18:15:34 sean-k-mooney bauzas: i have reviewd everything except the libvirt bump ill take a look at that now
18:15:48 bauzas <3
18:16:05 bauzas I'll write the prelude patch tomorrow morning
18:17:53 Uggla bauzas, keep a little bandwith tomorrow morning to review the fup for Vf live migration.
18:18:02 sean-k-mooney so the bump patch is split in two right, the first does the bump and then https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942872/2 is a follow up to drop the supprot for the older versions
18:18:21 sean-k-mooney so we can merge the bump and come back to the WIP patch next cycle yes
18:19:01 Uggla sean-k-mooney, yes.
18:19:36 sean-k-mooney ok i have appoved that as well and rechecked it for the timeouts
18:21:05 Uggla sean-k-mooney, I was running out of time for doing the cleanup this cycle.
18:21:34 sean-k-mooney thats ok. once we have signaled the new min version and updated the constants
18:21:43 sean-k-mooney the agent will check for the new min verison and report it
18:21:55 sean-k-mooney so we shoudl be fine
18:22:24 Uggla I hope too
18:26:35 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Move Epoxy implemented specs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/944019
18:47:11 bauzas updated the cycle highlights : https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943801
18:49:22 opendevreview Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Support "one-time-use" PCI devices https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/943816
18:49:22 opendevreview Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Extend invalidate_rp to only invalidate cache https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944148
18:49:23 opendevreview Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Invalidate PCI-in-placement cached RPs during claim https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944149
20:42:11 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: FUP Update pci-passthrough and virtual-gpu documentation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944153
21:02:09 opendevreview Steve Baker proposed openstack/nova master: Add VNC console support for the Ironic driver https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942528
#openstack-nova - 2025-03-13
10:47:18 bauzas gentle reminder that we have a couple of open patches that we need to merge before RC1 : https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-epoxy-rc-potential
10:47:40 bauzas also, I'll be off today after noon CET (ie. in 15 mins)
12:11:50 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: FUP improve and add integration tests for PCI SR-IOV servers https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944106
12:11:51 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: FUP Add a warning to make non-explicit live migration request debugging easier https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944133
12:11:51 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: FUP Update pci-passthrough and virtual-gpu documentation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944153
12:32:34 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: doc: mark the maximum microversion for 2025.1 Epoxy https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/943948
13:21:52 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Reproduce bug/2098496 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941673
13:37:19 opendevreview Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add one-time-use-devices spec https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/943486
13:37:56 dansmith bauzas: typo fix, if you could ^
13:38:20 dansmith melwitt: I still think your +1 on that is useful if you want to re-add it (and I don't blame you, this is trial-by-PCI fire for me)
14:29:06 opendevreview Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Add one-time-use devices docs and reno https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944262
15:29:44 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Reproduce bug/2098496 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941673
15:29:44 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Ignore metadata tags in pci/stats _find_pool logic https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944277
15:31:13 gibi dansmith: just an FYI. This ^^ is the bugfix in the PCI in Placement codepath that fixes double allocations due to pool breakup
15:31:59 dansmith um, you say that like I should have context on that issue.. did we discuss this before?
15:32:16 gibi yepp in our last sprint planning downstream ;)
15:32:25 gibi you were interested in reviewing it
15:32:48 gibi the main issue is that if you have like 2 VFs per a single PF
15:32:52 dansmith okay I shall refresh myself :D
15:33:19 gibi and boot a VM requesting 1 VF, then delete the VM, and boot again the second VM will get 2 VFs instead of one
15:33:34 dansmith oh right right sorry
15:34:07 gibi the way the pci stats device pooling interacts with the placement driven PCI allocation leads some broken assumptions
15:34:43 gibi causing that the two VFs are broken up into two pools but both refer to the same placement RP
15:35:10 gibi while the other side of the code assumes that devices from a same RP are always in the same pool
15:35:54 dansmith I totally remember the conversation now, yep
15:36:07 gibi now both side of the code is improved. i) we avoid breaking up the pool ii) even if the pool is broken up in the future the other side of the code will be more graceful
15:36:27 gibi and not just allocate the same amount from each pool
15:45:04 dansmith okay I skimmed the repro thing.. I need to go learn about the pooling as I have a big gap there.. I'm also surprised this affects placement, but I guess because of some healing
15:45:42 dansmith but the "doesn't end up like we started" part of that makes sense of course
15:46:37 sean-k-mooney the pooling of the pci devices?
15:46:41 gibi sean-k-mooney: yepp
15:47:18 gibi dansmith: exactly I also think it affects placement due to healing, I will assert that in the repro..
15:47:33 sean-k-mooney nova pci tracker kid of wors like placment but before placement was a thing. we summerised the "invetories" of devices into pools and that what we expose to the schduler
15:47:49 sean-k-mooney rather then all the devices on each host
15:47:55 dansmith I assume the pools are because of numa nodes or something?
15:48:08 sean-k-mooney not exactly
15:48:25 sean-k-mooney they are partly related ot that
15:48:39 sean-k-mooney btu they can be splcit on other thign liek neutron phsynet
15:49:06 gibi or rp_uui :)
15:49:11 gibi rp_uuid
15:49:28 sean-k-mooney ya that was grafted on after the fact for pci in placement
15:49:46 gibi dansmith: (confirmed locally that indeed the healing part breaks the placement view)

Earlier   Later