On 06/21/2018 07:04 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
As I understand it, Artom is proposing to have a larger race window,
essentially
from when the scheduler selects a node until the resource audit runs on that
node.
Exactly. When writing the spec I thought we could just call the
On 06/21/2018 07:50 AM, Mooney, Sean K wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
Side question... does either approach touch PCI device management
during live migration?
I ask because the only workloads I've ever seen that pin guest vCPU
threads to
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 09:36:58AM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 06/18/2018 10:16 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > For Rocky I'm trying to get live migration to work properly for
> > instances that have a NUMA topology [1].
> >
> > A question that came up on one of patches [2] is
> Side question... does either approach touch PCI device management during
> live migration?
Nope. I'd need to do some research to see what, if anything, is needed
at the lower levels (kernel, libvirt) to enable this.
> I ask because the only workloads I've ever seen that pin guest vCPU threads
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 2:37 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] NUMA-aware live migration: easy but
> incomplete vs complete but hard
>
>
On 06/18/2018 10:16 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
Hey all,
For Rocky I'm trying to get live migration to work properly for
instances that have a NUMA topology [1].
A question that came up on one of patches [2] is how to handle
resources claims on the destination, or indeed whether to handle that
>
> As I understand it, Artom is proposing to have a larger race window,
> essentially
> from when the scheduler selects a node until the resource audit runs on
> that node.
>
Exactly. When writing the spec I thought we could just call the resource
tracker to claim the resources when the
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:16:05AM -0400, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> For Rocky I'm trying to get live migration to work properly for
> instances that have a NUMA topology [1].
>
> A question that came up on one of patches [2] is how to handle
> resources claims on the destination, or
On 06/20/2018 10:00 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
When we reviewed the spec, we agreed as a community to say that we should still
get race conditions once the series is implemented, but at least it helps
operators.
Quoting :
"It would also be possible for another instance to steal NUMA resources
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
> > Adding
> > claims support later on wouldn't change any on-the-wire messaging, it
> would
> > just make things work more robustly.
>
> I'm not even sure about that. Assuming [1] has at least the right
> idea, it looks like it's an
On 06/19/2018 01:59 PM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
Adding
claims support later on wouldn't change any on-the-wire messaging, it would
just make things work more robustly.
I'm not even sure about that. Assuming [1] has at least the right
idea, it looks like it's an either-or kind of thing: either we
> Adding
> claims support later on wouldn't change any on-the-wire messaging, it would
> just make things work more robustly.
I'm not even sure about that. Assuming [1] has at least the right
idea, it looks like it's an either-or kind of thing: either we use
resource tracker claims and get the
> For what it's worth, I think the previous patch languished for a number of
> reasons other than the complexity of the code...the original author left,
> the coding style was a bit odd, there was an attempt to make it work even if
> the source was an earlier version, etc. I think a fresh
On 06/18/2018 08:16 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
Hey all,
For Rocky I'm trying to get live migration to work properly for
instances that have a NUMA topology [1].
A question that came up on one of patches [2] is how to handle
resources claims on the destination, or indeed whether to handle that
Hey all,
For Rocky I'm trying to get live migration to work properly for
instances that have a NUMA topology [1].
A question that came up on one of patches [2] is how to handle
resources claims on the destination, or indeed whether to handle that
at all.
The previous attempt's approach [3]
15 matches
Mail list logo
