Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][NFV][qa] Testing NUMA, CPU pinning and large pages

2015-01-28 Thread Vladik Romanovsky


- Original Message -
> From: "Steve Gordon" 
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 January, 2015 9:46:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][NFV][qa] Testing NUMA, CPU pinning and 
> large pages
> 
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Vladik Romanovsky" 
> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > 
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > Following Steve Gordon's email [1], regarding CI for NUMA, SR-IOV, and
> > other
> > features, I'd like to start a discussion about the NUMA testing in
> > particular.
> > 
> > Recently we have started a work to test some of these features.
> > The current plan is to use the functional tests, in the Nova tree, to
> > exercise
> > the code paths for NFV use cases. In general, these will contain tests
> > to cover various scenarios regarding NUMA, CPU pinning, large pages and
> > validate a correct placement/scheduling.
> 
> Hi Vladik,
> 
> There was some discussion of the above at the Nova mid-cycle yesterday, are
> you able to give a quick update on any progress with regards to creation of
> the above functional tests?
> 

I have a some progress, however, currently I have some challenges with 
validating
the scheduler filters outcome. I'll try to post some of it in the coming days.

> > In addition to the functional tests in Nova, we have also proposed two
> > basic
> > scenarios in Tempest [2][3]. One to make sure that an instance can boot
> > with a
> > minimal NUMA configuration (a topology that every host should have) and
> > one that would request an "impossible" topology and fail with an expected
> > exception.
> 
> We also discussed the above tempest changes and they will likely receive some
> more review cycles as a result of this discussion but it looks like there is
> already some feedback from Nikola that needs to be addressed. More broadly
> for the list it looks like we need to determine whether adding a negative
> test in this case is a valid/desireable use of Tempest.

I have updated the tempest tests yesterday. The tests were waiting on a nova
patch to be merged: 
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145312

However, unfortunately, I've discovered another bug in nova that prevents the
tests from passing, somehow I missed it in the previous attempt:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150694

Thanks,
Vladik

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve
> 
> __
> 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


Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][NFV][qa] Testing NUMA, CPU pinning and large pages

2015-01-27 Thread Steve Gordon
- Original Message -
> From: "Vladik Romanovsky" 
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Following Steve Gordon's email [1], regarding CI for NUMA, SR-IOV, and other
> features, I'd like to start a discussion about the NUMA testing in
> particular.
> 
> Recently we have started a work to test some of these features.
> The current plan is to use the functional tests, in the Nova tree, to
> exercise
> the code paths for NFV use cases. In general, these will contain tests
> to cover various scenarios regarding NUMA, CPU pinning, large pages and
> validate a correct placement/scheduling.

Hi Vladik,

There was some discussion of the above at the Nova mid-cycle yesterday, are you 
able to give a quick update on any progress with regards to creation of the 
above functional tests?

> In addition to the functional tests in Nova, we have also proposed two basic
> scenarios in Tempest [2][3]. One to make sure that an instance can boot
> with a
> minimal NUMA configuration (a topology that every host should have) and
> one that would request an "impossible" topology and fail with an expected
> exception.

We also discussed the above tempest changes and they will likely receive some 
more review cycles as a result of this discussion but it looks like there is 
already some feedback from Nikola that needs to be addressed. More broadly for 
the list it looks like we need to determine whether adding a negative test in 
this case is a valid/desireable use of Tempest.

Thanks,

Steve

__
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