ack. will review shortly. thanks, Chris.
On 07/30/2018 02:20 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 07/26/2018 12:15 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
The `in_tree` calls happen from the report client method
`_get_providers_in_tree` which is called by
`_ensure_resource_provider` which can be called from multiple
places, but in this case is being called both times from
`get_provider_tree_and_ensure_root`, which is also responsible for
two of the inventory request.
`get_provider_tree_and_ensure_root` is called by `_update` in the
resource tracker.
`_update` is called by both `_init_compute_node` and
`_update_available_resource`. Every single period job iteration.
`_init_compute_node` is called from _update_available_resource`
itself.
That accounts for the overall doubling.
Actually, no. What accounts for the overall doubling is the fact that
we no longer short-circuit return from _update() when there are no
known changes in the node's resources.
I think we're basically agreeing on this: I'm describing the current
state of affairs, not attempting to describe why it is that way.
Your insight helps to explain why.
I have a set of change in progress which experiments with what
happens if we don't call placement a second time in the _update
call:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/587050/
Just to see what might blow up.
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
