| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2026-06-01 | |||
| 16:51:50 | gibi | thanks Uggla | |
| 16:51:54 | Uggla | #endmeeting | |
| 16:51:54 | opendevmeet | Meeting ended Mon Jun 1 16:51:54 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 16:51:54 | opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2026/nova.2026-06-01-16.00.html | |
| 16:51:54 | opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2026/nova.2026-06-01-16.00.txt | |
| 16:51:54 | opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2026/nova.2026-06-01-16.00.log.html | |
| 16:51:55 | phildree[m] | I wanted to ask if i could have a review on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/984384 but Uggla already wrote about this | |
| 16:52:13 | elodilles | thanks o/ | |
| 16:52:19 | Uggla | phildree[m] I have mentionned it in the review point above | |
| 16:52:52 | phildree[m] | Thank you Uggla is there something i can do to it or do i just have to wait and see? | |
| 16:53:57 | phildree[m] | If there is nothing i can do then i might start implementing it for our infrastructure and if something happens down the line then i might push the code to the openstack repo as well | |
| 16:54:14 | Uggla | I think Dan was interested by this, so I suggest you add him as a reviewer. | |
| 16:55:12 | Uggla | I'll try to have a look too. So maybe it could ease the review for a last core reviewer. | |
| 16:55:33 | phildree[m] | Ok, thank you very much! :) | |
| 16:56:01 | Uggla | also try to ping people around Thursday, as this is a review day. | |
| 16:56:23 | phildree[m] | Good to know, will do! | |
| 16:57:25 | Uggla | They have a lot to review. But maybe they will find a slot before the spec freeze. | |
| 16:57:55 | phildree[m] | Understood :) | |
| 17:09:38 | opendevreview | Anton Iacobaeus proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Intel TDX support in libvirt driver https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/979608 | |
| 17:29:13 | Uggla | gibi, sambork --> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/complete-eventlet-removal SLBP | |
| 17:30:17 | cardoe | Uggla: thanks. I’m on PTO so I missed the meeting. I’ll be out next week. | |
| 17:32:32 | Uggla | cardoe, no worries I was aware of it, so I have just skip your topic. But keep mentioning the spec to have it approved. | |
| 17:39:17 | cardoe | Thank you. | |
| 18:55:00 | gmaan | melwitt: graceful shutdown spec is ready for 2nd core review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/986447 | |
| 18:55:44 | melwitt | gmaan: I am reading through it now :) thanks for reminding | |
| 18:56:00 | gmaan | melwitt: thanks | |
| 19:29:06 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Spec for the graceful shutdown part2: Task tracking https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/986447 | |
| 19:45:32 | melwitt | gmaan: we could use some help reviewing sean-k-mooney fix for unified limits quota enforcement https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/975872 the fix is basically to incorporate RequestSpec into the quota checking to handle cases where the flavor extra spec(s) is not a 1-to-1 mapping to the placement resource classes. if you might be able to take a look | |
| 19:46:49 | gmaan | melwitt: ack, will check. | |
| 19:47:44 | melwitt | thx | |
| 19:53:30 | melwitt | dansmith: I wondered if you might be able to help review this bug fix about stale file existence (false positive) on NFS https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/988547 this has come up in downstream CI intermittent failures on NFS and then more recently in a customer case. the fix itself is very small | |
| 20:04:47 | dansmith | okay will look in a sec | |
| 20:05:33 | melwitt | thx | |
| 20:08:23 | dansmith | melwitt: hmm, I get the hack but.. could we not do something similar by just trying to cache the disk and fail if it exists (using the same exclusive create)? | |
| 20:09:15 | dansmith | meaning, | |
| 20:09:29 | dansmith | instead of trying to create it, and removing it if we succeed, | |
| 20:09:54 | melwitt | dansmith: oh, maybe. the exclusive create is the key (obviously) I was kinda torn between putting it for everything vs knowing the swap disk is the uniquely problematic case | |
| 20:09:55 | dansmith | just create it (empty) and if we succeeded, continue to use that file for create_image() | |
| 20:10:11 | dansmith | and if we failed to create because EEXIST, then we don't call create_image | |
| 20:10:29 | dansmith | I mean, I think you can do this in _create_swap() right? | |
| 20:10:47 | dansmith | just always call that, and if we fail to create it because it exists, then return, else continue with create_image() ? | |
| 20:11:08 | melwitt | I think maybe not bc _create_swap() is only for creating the backing file | |
| 20:11:48 | melwitt | (and I know, I know, we shouldn't have backing files for swap and eph but we do .... that's a separate change we have talked about making) | |
| 20:11:50 | dansmith | ..._create_swap() i the thing you're calling right after, right? | |
| 20:12:01 | dansmith | ohhh | |
| 20:12:15 | melwitt | that's the fetch func | |
| 20:12:16 | dansmith | swap.cache() "fetches" the backing image by calling _create_swap() I guess | |
| 20:12:17 | melwitt | yeah. hah | |
| 20:12:53 | dansmith | okay gross but anyway | |
| 20:12:59 | melwitt | yes, _create_swap() is only for creating the backing file if it doesn't exist, then the file existence of the actual child disk is a separate thing | |
| 20:13:08 | melwitt | yes, it is gross | |
| 20:13:15 | dansmith | I guess my point is.. do we have to create the fake thing, then remove it, then re-create with swap.cache()? | |
| 20:13:19 | dansmith | can we not just leave it? | |
| 20:15:04 | dansmith | the os.path.exists that gets fooled is the one in cache() right? | |
| 20:16:45 | melwitt | yes | |
| 20:17:27 | dansmith | and you didn't want to do this in cache (replace os.exists with a test create) just because it will affect more than swap? | |
| 20:17:29 | melwitt | or in create_image possibly | |
| 20:18:26 | dansmith | this just seems like a really really specific thing where we tickle a bit of behavior that could change (or be different on some other NFS implementation) and making it more direct/in-the-critical-path would be better | |
| 20:18:29 | melwitt | kinda. was torn about it. bc this is kind of an NFS-only problem (i.e. shared storage that is not ceph, I guess) and a swap-only problem. to do the exclusive probe | |
| 20:18:57 | dansmith | right, but like, CIFS could behave similarly but not exactly the same, for example | |
| 20:20:48 | melwitt | yeah ... I'm not opposed, just wasn't sure about adding a more expensive thing to all paths. I think your point is fair | |
| 20:21:15 | dansmith | because we could use os.posix_fallocate() on the fd we get from open instead of spawning the fallocate command, and then it would be way less expensive than it is today | |
| 20:21:52 | melwitt | oh, that's interesting | |
| 20:21:54 | dansmith | anyway, I'm just not jazzed about the obscurity of it.. but I'll just approve with a not-so-passive-aggressive comment about maybe following up and exploring ^ | |
| 20:23:36 | melwitt | I knew you would be good for this review :) I was blown away by the false positive, period. and my knowledge limited compared to what you're talking about. I am ok with changing the approach, I'm sure sean-k-mooney will understand it too | |
| 20:26:37 | dansmith | NFS has this sort of behavior all the time, and it has changed over the years, | |
| 20:26:47 | dansmith | and I suspect also differs based on your mount arguments | |
| 20:27:28 | dansmith | commented and +W'd | |
| 20:27:47 | melwitt | ok yeah confirmed it's in cache() where it does the wrong thing, I just re-read the comments in https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/OSPRH-12784 where I first saw this issue | |
| 20:28:15 | melwitt | thanks dansmith | |
| #openstack-nova - 2026-06-02 | |||
| 04:30:17 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Disable interactive prompt on LVM image creation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/990576 | |
| 04:30:31 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Use tempest_concurrency=1 for nova-vtpm job https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984864 | |
| 05:14:41 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2025.2: Fix resize to unpermitted flavors https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/988153 | |
| 11:35:19 | sean-k-mooney | hi folks are we ok with running my cirros experiemtn for the next 2 weeks https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/990728 i have also created the revert https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/990729/1 im planning to update my pr https://github.com/cirros-dev/cirros/pull/132 to creat a seperate qcow image that is pre populated isntead of updating the existing one as | |
| 11:35:21 | sean-k-mooney | sugested by frickley but before we commit to that and look toward a release i want to actully confirm this fixes the issues | |
| 11:37:23 | sean-k-mooney | in terms of otehr reviews i woudl really love to close out https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/975872 and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984540 today if folks have time to reivew | |
| 11:37:48 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: stephenfin if time permits can ye add those to your queue | |
| 12:02:43 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I trade https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984540 for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/986282 | |
| 12:02:48 | gibi | :) | |
| 12:03:21 | sean-k-mooney | sure, oh the eventlet poison ya i can look at that now | |
| 12:04:26 | sean-k-mooney | this still works the way we dicussed right your faking an import expection in the poison so that oslo continues to work but new imporat that dont explcitly guard against that fail | |
| 12:08:15 | gibi | yepp it still raises ImportError | |
| 12:12:03 | sean-k-mooney | i would generally prefer if we didnt have get_eventlet() as that is allowing direct usage outside of the utils file | |
| 12:12:20 | sean-k-mooney | but that prefence is not enought to hold up the patch | |
| 12:12:41 | sean-k-mooney | can we consier if we can prevent leakign that as part of adressign the todo's you have in line | |
| 12:19:11 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: commented and +2w the overall change looks good to me jsut aksed that we consider the feedback inlien as an addtion todo for the followups | |
| 13:34:29 | opendevreview | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/nova master: Use SDK for Neutron security-groups https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/981141 | |
| 14:02:05 | opendevreview | Anton Iacobaeus proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Intel TDX support in libvirt driver https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/979608 | |
| 14:31:41 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: done | |
| 14:32:37 | stephenfin | (the cirros change: gibi has +W'd the other two) | |
| 14:49:02 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: thanks | |
| 15:06:41 | melwitt | gibi: thanks for hitting the unified limits fix | |
| 15:11:10 | sean-k-mooney | from a purely upsteam point of view is that somethign we would want to backport? | |
| 15:11:17 | sean-k-mooney | or master only | |
| 15:12:22 | sean-k-mooney | makeing unified limits work for cybrog/pci-passhtough/neutiron qos is both a bug and a feature | |
| 15:12:33 | sean-k-mooney | so while im happy that tis a bug that that was overlooked on master | |
| 15:12:45 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure it qualifies for the stabel policy as a backportable bug | |
| 15:13:15 | sean-k-mooney | so i was going to not backport premetivly and wait for someoen to ask for it | |
| 15:14:11 | sean-k-mooney | i do know there was at least some operator intest in this so im fine with either approch | |
| 15:21:26 | melwitt | yeah I guess that's true it was a known issue but also I think important for cloud operators, so I would lean toward being reasonable to backport upstream. that's just me though | |