| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-06-06 | |||
| 12:35:55 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: actully i asked gemini for some ohter variation that aovid the repition let me link them | |
| 12:37:07 | sean-k-mooney | https://paste.opendev.org/show/b7wJJXIE4edOqlCZ3Ijj/ | |
| 12:40:32 | sean-k-mooney | can we use unevaluatedProperties? | |
| 12:41:50 | sean-k-mooney | if so option 3 is an option, 1 and 2 are mostly the same it jsut comes down to an if or switch semantic to select the correct one | |
| 12:42:11 | sean-k-mooney | i would go with 3>2>1 in that order | |
| 12:44:25 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Remove v2.0 API https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/951949 | |
| 12:44:58 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: gibi: gmaan: Would be interested in hearing if there's a solid reason not to do ^ | |
| 12:44:59 | sean-k-mooney | hum that also an approch if we do that can we add v3 as a perfect copy of 2.100 :) | |
| 12:45:25 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: please look at the previsou paste if you didnt see that howevre | |
| 12:45:56 | stephenfin | I suggested that before. dansmith said no | |
| 12:46:19 | sean-k-mooney | how about v4 | |
| 12:46:26 | sean-k-mooney | that woudl be at least new | |
| 12:49:28 | gibi | stephenfin: in general I'm OK to remove v2.0 it is old as hell and right now it poses problems for us. I'm also OK to just sidestep the problem and disable response validaton in 2.0 | |
| 12:49:38 | sean-k-mooney | my personal prefence woudl be to add v3 in 2026.1 and remove v2.0 while keeping all of 2.1-2.100 until 2028.1+ | |
| 12:51:26 | sean-k-mooney | and in 2028.1 we woudl see if enough peopel had moved to v3 do deprection 2.1+ or not and set a deadlien for that but basiclly feature freeze that code next cycle. | |
| 12:51:59 | sean-k-mooney | by feature feeze i just mean no more 2.x microverions | |
| 12:52:04 | sean-k-mooney | not duplicate teh code | |
| 12:54:13 | gibi | where does the v3 and v4 idea coming from? Could we just have 2.1, remove 2.0 and that is it? | |
| 12:55:01 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: that was me just saying removing v2.0 specificly i think is good | |
| 12:55:17 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: but as i have argued for years i think its time for a v3 | |
| 12:55:26 | sean-k-mooney | or to raise our min version | |
| 12:55:36 | sean-k-mooney | i know dan dose not want to od that | |
| 12:55:46 | sean-k-mooney | and i dont thnk we will have time to even consider a v3 this cycle | |
| 12:56:03 | sean-k-mooney | im just frustrated that we wont even consider doing it again | |
| 12:56:20 | sean-k-mooney | i think it activly makes our rest api wrose | |
| 12:56:21 | gibi | ahh the raising of the min version. | |
| 12:56:49 | sean-k-mooney | ya so if we remove 2.0 we efectivly faise ti to 2.1 | |
| 12:56:55 | gibi | yeah here we don't need it but yes if it helps deleting code then we can consider raising the min version | |
| 12:56:59 | sean-k-mooney | which ithink is fine since they should be identical | |
| 12:57:56 | sean-k-mooney | i am supprtive of stephenfin proposal to do the minium possible min_virsion in crease form 2.0 to 2.1 | |
| 12:58:16 | sean-k-mooney | by removeing 2.0 | |
| 12:58:34 | sean-k-mooney | but once we are done with eventlet removal and the open api schema work | |
| 12:58:48 | sean-k-mooney | and service/manager policy work | |
| 12:59:18 | sean-k-mooney | then i think we shoudl revisit v3 or raisgin the min version to somewhere in the 2.77 ish range | |
| 12:59:47 | sean-k-mooney | im not pusshign for tha tnow but i thik we shoudl at least discuss how this woudl work in the next 18 months | |
| 13:00:56 | gibi | yeah I think it make sense to discuss it and collect a list of things we would gain out of such a change | |
| 13:02:05 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: you still have not responded on the other schema permutaions https://paste.opendev.org/show/b7wJJXIE4edOqlCZ3Ijj/ do any of those look reasonabel to you as i said my prefernce there would be 3>2>1 | |
| 13:02:33 | sean-k-mooney | unevaluatedProperties if viable seam clean and consise | |
| 13:02:49 | gibi | on a totally independent topic. I just learned today that `openstack server list` triggers two independent full scatter-gather calls one for getting the instances (obviously needed) and one for getting the bdms for the instances (not so obvious). 1) https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/68c2341b765a22b9b81894d2ff3b21fd5f8632ec/nova/api/openstack/compute/servers.py#L326 | |
| 13:02:55 | gibi | 2)https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/68c2341b765a22b9b81894d2ff3b21fd5f8632ec/nova/api/openstack/compute/servers.py#L342 and https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/68c2341b765a22b9b81894d2ff3b21fd5f8632ec/nova/api/openstack/compute/views/servers.py#L497 | |
| 13:03:09 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: sorry, I'd just assumed we were going to skip validation for response bodies and be done with it | |
| 13:03:27 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: hum thats unfortunet | |
| 13:04:11 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: i assume we cant pass an arge to do the join egerly | |
| 13:05:09 | elodilles | hi folks, i know thay you are busy with other things, but there is a small "tool" change i'd appreciate you would review and merge if possible (yeah, it's a small fix for backport validator, related to unmaintained branches :/): https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/949628 | |
| 13:05:17 | elodilles | s/thay/that/ | |
| 13:06:17 | gibi | elodilles: +2 | |
| 13:06:19 | sean-k-mooney | looks fine to me i guess | |
| 13:06:43 | sean-k-mooney | it is one of the first times we have had to skip eols | |
| 13:06:54 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: we might, but the server/view code is entered from different places so we should only conditionally do the join if we know it will be used | |
| 13:07:05 | stephenfin | gibi: sean-k-mooney: thanks for the help https://github.com/stephenfin/nova/commit/2630daf37c8adf4b443c80e66139ea6285c04eae | |
| 13:07:24 | stephenfin | will push all those once the bulk of what's already up on gerrit has merged | |
| 13:08:17 | elodilles | thanks gibi sean-k-mooney o/ | |
| 13:35:42 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: im on a call but we have someting like "expected_filds" or something like that to contole which filed are lazy loaded on the instance object | |
| 13:35:57 | sean-k-mooney | i dont knwo if we can use that in soem way | |
| 13:37:37 | sean-k-mooney | i was thinkig of https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/objects/instance.py#L77C5-L101 | |
| 13:46:49 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Run nova-api and -metadata in threaded mode https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/951957 | |
| 13:48:33 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: yeah we can ask for the join, the problem is that there are multiple ways reaching that calls and some will use the bdms later some won't. Also the way how this is built up make is pretty hard to untangle them. It is not impossible to refactor this but I decided not to try it now | |
| 13:48:59 | gibi | btw if https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/951957 works then that is a nice surprise and an easy win | |
| 13:49:32 | gibi | locally it works for me but I need the full tempest run from nova-next to believe in it | |
| 14:00:50 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: well i had workign versions last cycel so it really wont take much | |
| 14:01:36 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: as in the api was the one of the first thigns i thied to move so with the infra you have added im expict that to not be supper complx to get working | |
| 14:02:20 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: and yes scater gatther is the only use of eventlet spwan in them | |
| 14:02:28 | sean-k-mooney | that why i suggested starting with the api | |
| 14:03:11 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: i know i need to go back adn review the most recent version but i think schduler api and metadta are doabel by m2 | |
| 14:05:43 | gibi | yeah now that I see api working locally I believe that it is doable for m2 | |
| 14:06:47 | sean-k-mooney | it might be worth askign clark to look at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/devstack/+/948436 again | |
| 14:07:17 | sean-k-mooney | although it will be a few days in any case before we get that far in the series | |
| 14:09:25 | gibi | good point. I pinged clark in the review now and I can ping him on IRC next week | |
| 15:58:09 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: [tool] Fix backport validator for non-SLURP https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/949628 | |
| 16:03:19 | opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: [tool] Fix backport validator for non-SLURP https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/951968 | |
| 16:04:36 | opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.2: [tool] Fix backport validator for non-SLURP https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/951969 | |
| 16:05:14 | opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.1: [tool] Fix backport validator for non-SLURP https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/951970 | |
| 16:29:22 | noonedeadpunk | I'm trying here to setup hugepages for one of my computes, but instance gets filtered out at NUMATopologyFilter with no good candidates https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filters/numa_topology_filter.py#L115-L121 | |
| 16:31:31 | noonedeadpunk | compute object seems to be having mempages https://paste.openstack.org/show/bRHPMmumA43t0KHk186K/ | |
| 16:33:02 | noonedeadpunk | I wonder if that's might be also due to PCI Passthrough attempt, as that's I guess what might not work with numa placement nicely? | |
| 16:34:55 | noonedeadpunk | flavor defined as `hw:cpu_policy='dedicated', hw:mem_page_size='2MB', hw:vif_multiqueue_enabled='true', trait:CUSTOM_GPU='required', pci_passthrough:alias='A10_FULL:1'` | |
| 16:35:17 | noonedeadpunk | and obviously once I unset hw:mem_page_size - scheduling passing nicely | |
| 16:35:58 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [DNM] testing py3.13 eventlet bug workaround https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/951749 | |
| 16:57:47 | sean-k-mooney | you can have both enabled | |
| 16:58:20 | sean-k-mooney | however if you have a numa vm by default we require the pci device request by the guest to come form the same numa node as the guest cpus/memory | |
| 16:58:30 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: you can diabel that in your pci config | |
| 17:00:37 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: in your pci alias you can set https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#pci.alias numa_policy=preferred | |
| 17:00:52 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: you can also set that in the flavor which is generally simpler | |
| 17:02:04 | sean-k-mooney | i would recomend setting hw:pci_numa_affinity_policy=preferred or hw:pci_numa_affinity_policy=socket | |
| 17:02:25 | sean-k-mooney | preferred is the most relaxed policy | |
| 17:02:54 | sean-k-mooney | i woudl also suggest using hw:mem_page_size=large | |
| 17:05:36 | noonedeadpunk | large is 1G? | |
| 17:06:11 | noonedeadpunk | let me try setting policies then... | |
| 17:06:52 | noonedeadpunk | as I tried couple of options, like hw:numa_nodes=1 | |
| 17:12:37 | noonedeadpunk | nah, didn't fly somehow... I guess best thing to do for me now - go for a weekend and check on that with fresh eyes after it :) | |
| 17:12:43 | gmaan | about 2.0 removal. I am not sure what is benefits if we keep v2.1 as min version. 2.0 is just a endpoint without any change from v2.1 so no overhead of maintenance. This will just break user using 2.0 endpoint without giving any gain | |
| 17:21:33 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: large is anything that isnt small i.e. anything other then 4k default pagesize | |
| 17:22:10 | noonedeadpunk | aha, ok | |
| 17:22:27 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: if you have not turned on debug yet do that on monday in the schduler | |
| 17:22:39 | sean-k-mooney | you will need that to discover why | |
| 17:22:45 | noonedeadpunk | I did that on scheduler | |
| 17:22:51 | sean-k-mooney | ack | |
| 17:23:04 | noonedeadpunk | that's where I grabbed cpu capabilities | |
| 17:23:10 | noonedeadpunk | *compute | |
| 17:23:37 | sean-k-mooney | so your flavor was askign for pinned cpus and hugepages | |