>> it's really on nested allocation candidates.
> 
> Yup. And that series is deadlocked on a disagreement about whether
> granular request groups should be "separate by default" (meaning: if you
> request multiple groups of resources, the expectation is that they will
> be served by distinct resource providers) or "unrestricted by default"
> (meaning: if you request multiple groups of resources, those resources
> may or may not be serviced by distinct resource providers).

This is really a granular thing, not a nested thing.  I was holding up
the nrp-in-alloc-cands spec [1] for other reasons, but I've stopped
doing that now.  We should be able to proceed with the nrp work.  I'm
working on the granular code, wherein I can hopefully isolate the
separate-vs-unrestricted decision such that we can go either way once
that issue is resolved.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/556873/

>> Some negotiation happened with regard to when/if the fixes for
>> shared providers is going to happen. I'm not sure how that resolved,
>> if someone can follow up with that, that would be most excellent.

This is the subject of another thread [2] that's still "dangling".  We
discussed it in the sched meeting this week [3] and concluded [4] that
we shouldn't do it in Rocky.  BUT tetsuro later pointed out that part of
the series in question [5] is still needed to satisfy NRP-in-alloc-cands
(return the whole tree's providers in provider_summaries - even the ones
that aren't providing resource to the request).  That patch changes
behavior, so needs a microversion (mostly done already in that patch),
so needs a spec.  We haven't yet resolved whether this is truly needed,
so haven't assigned a body to the spec work.  I believe Jay is still
planning [6] to parse and respond to the ML thread.  After he clones
himself.

[2]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-March/128944.html
[3]
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova_scheduler/2018/nova_scheduler.2018-04-02-14.00.log.html#l-91
[4]
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova_scheduler/2018/nova_scheduler.2018-04-02-14.00.log.html#l-137
[5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/558045/
[6]
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova_scheduler/2018/nova_scheduler.2018-04-02-14.00.log.html#l-104

>> * Shared providers status?
>>    (I really think we need to make this go. It was one of the
>>    original value propositions of placement: being able to accurate
>>    manage shared disk.)
> 
> Agreed, but you know.... NUMA. And CPU pinning. And vGPUs. And FPGAs.
> And physnet network bandwidth scheduling. And... well, you get the idea.

Right.  I will say that Tetsuro has been doing an excellent job slinging
code for this, though.  So the bottleneck is really reviewer bandwidth
(already an issue for the work we *are* trying to fit in Rocky).

If it's still on the table by Stein, we ought to consider making it a
high priority.  (Our Rocky punchlist seems to be favoring "urgent" over
"important" to some extent.)

-efried

__________________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to