On 09/10/2014 07:23 PM, Michael Still wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:

a) Sorting out the common code is already accounted for in Dan B's original
proposal -- it's a prerequisite for the split.
Its a big prerequisite though. I think we're talking about a release
worth of work to get that right. I don't object to us doing that work,
but I think we need to be honest about how long its going to take. It
will also make the core of nova less agile, as we'll find it hard to
change the hypervisor driver interface over time. Do we really think
its ready to be stable?

I don't. For a long time now I've wanted to split the gigantic spawn() method in the virt api into more discrete steps. I think there's some opportunity for doing some steps in parallel and the potential to have failures reported earlier and handled better. But I've been sitting on it because I wanted to use 'tasks' as a way to address the parallelization and that work hasn't happened yet. But this work would be introducing new calls which would be used based on some sort of capability query to the driver, so I don't think this work is necessarily hindered by stabilizing the interface.

I also think the migration/resize methods could use some analysis before making a determination that they are what we want in a stable interface.

As an alternative approach...

What if we pushed most of the code for a driver into a library?
Imagine a library which controls the low level operations of a
hypervisor -- create a vm, attach a NIC, etc. Then the driver would
become a shim around that which was relatively thin, but owned the
interface into the nova core. The driver handles the nova specific
things like knowing how to create a config drive, or how to
orchestrate with cinder, but hands over all the hypervisor operations
to the library. If we found a bug in the library we just pin our
dependancy on the version we know works whilst we fix things.

In fact, the driver inside nova could be a relatively generic "library
driver", and we could have multiple implementations of the library,
one for each hypervisor.

This would make testing nova easier too, because we know how to mock
libraries already.

Now, that's kind of what we have in the hypervisor driver API now.
What I'm proposing is that the point where we break out of the nova
code base should be closer to the hypervisor than what that API

b) The conflict Dan is speaking of is around the current situation where we
have a limited core review team bandwidth and we have to pick and choose
which virt driver-specific features we will review. This leads to bad
feelings and conflict.
The way this worked in the past is we had cores who were subject
matter experts in various parts of the code -- there is a clear set of
cores who "get" xen or libivrt for example and I feel like those
drivers get reasonable review times. What's happened though is that
we've added a bunch of drivers without adding subject matter experts
to core to cover those drivers. Those newer drivers therefore have a
harder time getting things reviewed and approved.

That said, a heap of cores have spent time reviewing vmware driver
code this release, so its obviously not as simple as I describe above.

c) It's the impact to the CI and testing load that I see being the biggest
benefit to the split-out driver repos. Patches proposed to the XenAPI driver
shouldn't have the Hyper-V CI tests run against the patch. Likewise, running
libvirt unit tests in the VMWare driver repo doesn't make a whole lot of
sense, and all of these tests add a not-insignificant load to the overall
upstream and external CI systems. The long wait time for tests to come back
means contributors get frustrated, since many reviewers tend to wait until
Jenkins returns some result before they review. All of this leads to
increased conflict that would be somewhat ameliorated by having separate
code repos for the virt drivers.
It is already possible to filter CI runs to specific paths in the
code. We just didn't choose to do that for policy reasons. We could
change that right now with a trivial tweak to each CI system's zuul


OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to