[openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPAM] Pluggable IPAM rollback issue
carl at ecbaldwin.net
Tue Aug 2 22:27:59 UTC 2016
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Kevin Benton <kevin at benton.pub> wrote:
> >Given that it shares the session, it wouldn't have to do anything. But,
> again, it wouldn't behave like an external driver.
Why not? The only additional thing an external driver would be doing at
> this step is calling an external system. Any local accounting in the DB
> that driver would do would automatically be rolled back just like the
> in-tree system.
> Keep in mind that anything else can fail later in the transaction outside
> of IPAM (e.g. ML2 driver precommit validation) and none of this IPAM
> rollback logic will be called. Maybe the right answer is to get rid of the
> IPAM rollback logic completely because it gives the wrong impression that
> it is going to be called on all failures to commit when it's really only
> called in failures inside of IPAM's module. Essentially every instance of
> _safe_rollback in  is in an exception handler that isn't triggered if
> there are exceptions anywhere in the core plugin after the initial base DB
I noticed that there are failures which will not call rollback. I started
thinking about it when I wrote this note  (I did realize that rollback
might not even happen with the flush under the likes of galera and that
there are other failures that can happen outside of this and would fail to
rollback). I didn't bring it up here because I thought it was a separate
It might be the wrong impression, but it was already given and there are
drivers which have been written under it. That's why I tend toward fixing
rollback instead of eliminating it. If we eliminate the idea, it isn't
clear to me yet how drivers will handle leaked allocations (or
deallocations). We could talk about some alternatives. I've got a few
knocking around the back of my head but nothing that seems like a complete
If one only cares about the in-tree driver which doesn't need an explicit
rollback call then one probably wouldn't care about having one at all. This
is the kind of thing I'd like to avoid by having the in-tree driver work
more like any other external driver. When the in-tree driver works
differently than others because it has a closer relationship to the rest of
the system, we quickly forget the needs of other drivers.
> On Aug 1, 2016 18:11, "Carl Baldwin" <carl at ecbaldwin.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Kevin Benton <kevin at benton.pub> wrote:
>>> >We still want the exception to rollback the entire API operation and
>>> stopping it with a nested operation I think would mess that up.
>>> Well I think you would want to start a nested transaction, capture the
>>> duplicate, call the ipam delete methods, then throw a retryrequest. The
>>> exception will still trigger a rollback of the entire operation.
>> This is kind of what I was headed when I decided to solicit some
>> feedback. It is a possibility should still be considered.
>>> >Second, I've been throwing around the idea of not sharing the session
>>> with the IPAM driver.
>>> If the IPAM driver does not have access to the session, it can't see any
>>> of the uncommitted data. Would that be a problem? In particular, doesn't
>>> the IPAM driver's DB table have foreign key constraints with the data
>>> waiting to be committed in the other session? I'm hesitant to take this
>>> approach because it means other (if the in-tree doesn't already) IPAM
>>> drivers cannot have any relational integrity with the objects in question.
>> The in-tree driver doesn't have any FK constraints back to the neutron db
>> schema for IPAM . I don't think that would make sense since it is
>> supposed to work like an external driver.
>>> A related question is, why does the in-tree IPAM driver have to do
>>> anything at all on a rollback? It currently does share a session which is
>>> automatically going to rollback all of it's DB operations for it. If it's
>>> because the driver cannot distinguish a delete call from a rollback and a
>>> normal delete, I suggest we change the delete call to pass a flag
>>> indicating that it's for a rollback. That would allow any DB-based drivers
>>> to just do nothing at this step.
>> Given that it shares the session, it wouldn't have to do anything. But,
>> again, it wouldn't behave like an external driver. I'd like to not have
>> special drivers that behave differently than drivers that are really
>> external; we end up finding things that the in-tree driver does in our
>> testing that doesn't work right for other drivers.
>> Drivers might need to access uncommitted data from the neutron DB. I
>> think even external drivers do this. However, there is a hard line between
>> the Neutron tables (even IPAM related ones) and the pluggable IPAM driver
>> database schema. I should have been a little more explicit that I wasn't
>> suggesting that we hide the Neutron session from the driver. What I meant
>> to suggest is that we use a different session for the part of the database
>> schema that belongs solely to the driver. All of the changes would be
>> inside the driver implementation and the interface to the driver wouldn't
>> change at all.
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev