| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-11-04 | |||
| 14:25:16 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Run nova-compute in native threading mode https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/965467 | |
| 14:27:15 | dansmith | bauzas: in case you didn't see the mention, can you see my proposal here please? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941795/comments/fc49c07d_c06afef1 | |
| 14:51:21 | bauzas | dansmith: nope sorry, working hard on something else, f*** agile :) | |
| 14:51:42 | bauzas | dansmith: I definitely want to review again the vtpm series, will do it hopefully today | |
| 14:52:59 | dansmith | bauzas: alright, well, that link is to a specific proposal for for merging the bottom part now, which I think you've mostly reviewed already | |
| 14:54:53 | gibi | dansmith: thanks for the review on switching the default to native threading. Did you missed that it has two pre-req patch in the series? | |
| 14:55:32 | dansmith | gibi: oh, no I saw it, but I got distracted before I followed that down, sorry about that | |
| 14:55:42 | gibi | no worries. Take you time :) | |
| 14:57:16 | dansmith | I had skimmed them looking to see if the api/__init__ was being added in this series or was already in place | |
| 14:58:54 | gibi | it was in place. Actually I needed to improve and move from from cmd/__init__ to cmd/<entrypoint2025-11-03 14:29:01.144038 | ubuntu-noble | oslo_service.backend.exceptions.BackendAlreadySelected: Backend already set to 'eventlet', cannot reinitialize with 'threading'> | |
| 14:59:00 | gibi | oops | |
| 14:59:08 | gibi | copy past buffer grrr | |
| 14:59:26 | gibi | it was in place. Actually I needed to improve and move from from cmd/__init__ to cmd/<entrypoint>.py | |
| 14:59:53 | gibi | so I can make the default different per entry point | |
| 15:00:04 | dansmith | you're planning to do that for api? | |
| 15:00:09 | gibi | but the wsgi entry point is differnt than the cmd one | |
| 15:00:37 | dansmith | right, but we _could_ have an entry point somewhere else for api/wsgi that does the patching before it imports... | |
| 15:00:46 | gibi | as both wsgi service we have are switching defaults at the same time I did not needed to touch the api part | |
| 15:01:31 | dansmith | yeah, I'm more concerned about just something else importing something from api to get a constant or something and screwing up | |
| 15:04:16 | gibi | I cannot just delay monkey_patch call in api wsgi as other imports might start using primitives that should have been monkey patched | |
| 15:05:26 | gibi | if another service imports from api then we assume that the another service already went through monkey patching. And oslo.service does not allow changing the backend type once it set so we will catch it | |
| 15:05:49 | dansmith | you can if you control the order of the importing in the entry point | |
| 15:05:51 | gibi | when the second monkey patch call tries to change the backend due to differning default | |
| 15:06:30 | gibi | dansmith: that is what we do, we added the monkey patch as early as possible in the import list | |
| 15:06:37 | gibi | that is our control | |
| 15:07:44 | dansmith | I'm not sure if you're not understanding what I'm saying, or don't think it's possible, or think it's a bad idea.. either way, I'm not arguing...just commenting about my opinion | |
| 15:07:52 | gibi | import wsgi from api first execute __init__ so we need to be in __init__ if __init__ has other imports like oslo.log that creates a lock | |
| 15:08:22 | gibi | I guess I'm missing what would you like to see in case of api/__init__ | |
| 15:08:44 | gibi | s/import wsgi from api/from api import wsgi/ | |
| 15:10:05 | gibi | I think it is not possible to move the monkey_patch to api/wsgi from api/__init__ | |
| 15:10:32 | gibi | as api/__init__ has other imports | |
| 15:11:56 | sean-k-mooney | you could monkey patch before the other import | |
| 15:12:08 | dansmith | this ^ | |
| 15:12:08 | sean-k-mooney | you might need to add a noqa or similar comment | |
| 15:12:11 | dansmith | but I don't want to argue | |
| 15:12:17 | sean-k-mooney | but we can if we need too | |
| 15:12:35 | gibi | but I monkey patch before all the imports | |
| 15:12:36 | gibi | :) | |
| 15:13:05 | sean-k-mooney | i have not been folloing the converstaion by they way | |
| 15:13:21 | gibi | the first line of nova/api/openstack/__init__.py is the monkey patch | |
| 15:13:47 | gibi | I think dansmith would like that to be moved somewhere else | |
| 15:13:51 | sean-k-mooney | ah yes i remoember dicussign the #noqa comment for that | |
| 15:14:38 | gibi | at the moment I'm not sure where to move our nova.api.openstack.compute.wsgi:init_application to be able to move the monkey_patch | |
| 15:14:41 | sean-k-mooney | so ya https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/__init__.py and https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/__init__.py are empty today | |
| 15:15:24 | sean-k-mooney | well the entry point ot that is https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/wsgi/osapi_compute.py | |
| 15:15:55 | sean-k-mooney | across openstack we are ment ot have <package>.wsgi.<api endpoint) | |
| 15:16:23 | sean-k-mooney | so you could monkey patch here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/wsgi/__init__.py but im not sure it is required | |
| 15:16:25 | gibi | hm but our setup.cfg ponts to nova-api-wsgi = nova.api.openstack.compute.wsgi:init_application | |
| 15:16:49 | sean-k-mooney | that in wsgi script | |
| 15:16:52 | sean-k-mooney | but that is being deleted | |
| 15:17:05 | sean-k-mooney | it will generate the same script effectivly | |
| 15:17:42 | sean-k-mooney | we agreed at the ptg to finally delete https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/setup.cfg#L87-L89 | |
| 15:17:51 | gibi | but until that setup.cfg is a thing I need to make sure that works. So today I cannot move the monkey patch to nova/wsgi because that will not be executed if the setup.cfg defined entry point is used | |
| 15:18:35 | gibi | I agree that once the setup.cfg does not have such entry point defined and only the nova/wsgi is used then I can move the monkey_patch | |
| 15:18:37 | sean-k-mooney | right but lest just find and merge stephesn patch | |
| 15:18:44 | sean-k-mooney | then you can move it if needed | |
| 15:18:50 | gibi | OK | |
| 15:19:14 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/902688 | |
| 15:19:40 | sean-k-mooney | he updated the docs too | |
| 15:20:22 | sean-k-mooney | so its a slightly longer review then i was plannign but ill re review that today/tomorrow | |
| 15:20:53 | gibi | so that patch suggest the deployers do the right thing and use nova/wsgi | |
| 15:21:17 | sean-k-mooney | yep which is how devstack has worked for 2 releases now | |
| 15:25:33 | gibi | I need to respin my defaulting series anyhow so I can rebase on top of stephenfin and move the monkey patch accordingly | |
| 15:37:29 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: if you have time, would you be able to continue and grab the other 3 patches on top of that one? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953703 | |
| 16:00:05 | sean-k-mooney | my 1:1 just finished so sure. | |
| 16:10:09 | gibi | stephenfin: could you quickly fix the versioning issue in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/902688/9#message-72481479904c69ce6f3adbcdfb26143c6f85756a then we can land that | |
| 16:13:33 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: ah the versionchanged line | |
| 16:13:39 | sean-k-mooney | ya that shoudl eb 33.0.0 | |
| 16:14:14 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: setup: Remove pbr's wsgi_scripts https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/902688 | |
| 16:14:15 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Migrate mypy configuration to pyproject.toml https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953703 | |
| 16:14:15 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Migrate codespell configuration to pyproject.toml https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953704 | |
| 16:14:16 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Migrate setup configuration to pyproject.toml https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953705 | |
| 16:14:16 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: pre-commit: Bump versions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/966089 | |
| 16:14:22 | stephenfin | gibi: sean-k-mooney: done | |
| 16:14:53 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: did you see https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953704/4/pyproject.toml | |
| 16:15:03 | sean-k-mooney | im fien with not changing it just noded it was false before | |
| 16:15:06 | gibi | stephenfin: thanks | |
| 16:15:24 | sean-k-mooney | as in im fine with the patch as is just making sure you saw it | |
| 16:18:20 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: replied on both | |
| 16:20:06 | sean-k-mooney | thanks | |
| 16:29:37 | Zhan[m] | hi friends, I'm trying to work on some improvements for pre-copy live migrations - to reduce VMs' network connectivity loss time. I put my ideas and research in https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2128665 and would love some feedback before I start coding and making changes. does anyone mind taking a look? I can create a blueprint if it's needed. thanks!! | |
| 16:45:04 | sean-k-mooney | Zhan[m]: you are effectivly askign to trigger post-live-migration very slightly earlier | |
| 16:45:22 | sean-k-mooney | when pre-copy triggers a pause of the guest. | |
| 16:45:39 | sean-k-mooney | that only happens if you have set force-complete as the timeout action or if you manually do that | |
| 16:46:06 | sean-k-mooney | we do this for post-copy migration already when it enter the post copy phase | |
| 16:46:32 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure how safe ti woudl be to do that in this case vs the current migration completion event | |
| 16:46:54 | sean-k-mooney | Zhan[m]: this likely need more then a bug ie. perhaps a spec | |
| 16:47:26 | sean-k-mooney | or atleast more condierdation the a quick review of your propal to think though the implciiton for upgrades and the diffenent failure modes | |
| 16:49:15 | Zhan[m] | understood, I will go ahead and create a spec. wanna get some early feedback to see if this idea make sense or not. | |
| 16:49:48 | Zhan[m] | we are not using post-copy (I know that we'll avoid this with post-copy) so hence this is just for pre-copy | |
| 16:49:50 | sean-k-mooney | we might be able to use a slightly earlier event | |
| 16:50:40 | Zhan[m] | from my understanding, the paused event should be the earliest? (basically when the process is paused for switch-over) | |
| 16:51:24 | sean-k-mooney | yes but we need to think about the recover cases if there si a failure after pause | |
| 16:51:39 | sean-k-mooney | we currently do it in complete because we know we cant rollback at that point | |
| 16:52:20 | sean-k-mooney | Zhan[m]: just to confirm you are currenlty using pre-copy not post-copy | |
| 16:52:27 | sean-k-mooney | is there a reason you are not using post-copy | |
| 16:55:56 | Zhan[m] | > if there si a failure after pause... (full message at <https://matrix.org/oftc/media/v1/media/download/AQcXzaU3yYgbieAMs5LdQxhfkMQjWLQ8n98jM_lIB8gwWH9ApwZ_vdawDM9LNz0brOl_UevcPCkv3f-67_yYcUZCeal-T3mAAG1hdHJpeC5vcmcvRFZtSG9LWGxZaFNCZ0hrYnpXbVh0WnNi>) | |
| 16:56:15 | Zhan[m] | * - if there si a failure after pause... (full message at <https://matrix.org/oftc/media/v1/media/download/AYPX5olphEwNM-oVQEAeW1n4bjBMOCL7JcBa2--xwCdXhT0nA_sPuR_jnKT0C0oDEmSyzPWDZpPKsZ1wc-FdO-dCeal-VAbgAG1hdHJpeC5vcmcvRUtYVUxDZVBiekRLck1wZ0hpSW1ZVWNn>) | |
| 16:56:51 | Zhan[m] | * - if there si a failure after pause... (full message at <https://matrix.org/oftc/media/v1/media/download/AfGmfWXp6q289_-pAg_3r2CNmHk8GLA3AAnfqOAWmBViUGQMwTDwe8p12QyJHYlvI7HoFg0OieVLTgc2FNFdS1dCeal-XNrgAG1hdHJpeC5vcmcvZkprTUVOeWlRR0htWmlYc2hLZVhYZ0ha>) | |
| 16:58:00 | Zhan[m] | * - if there si a failure after pause... (full message at <https://matrix.org/oftc/media/v1/media/download/AQbdtBpPhkIEZJLqRgxshCfnuFsmdpJyW0XBuScJnchhklfJJ0L11j5bwq4dTpkoh88wJMokcThxBRTCLw1ECLJCeal-bZagAG1hdHJpeC5vcmcvQXNCTUJqVWtqUWF0cmJKRG1XRURxbmF1>) | |