Open Stack

ack. will review shortly. thanks, Chris.

On 07/30/2018 02:20 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, Jay Pipes wrote:
> 
>> On 07/26/2018 12:15 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
>>> The `in_tree` calls happen from the report client method
>>> `_get_providers_in_tree` which is called by
>>> `_ensure_resource_provider` which can be called from multiple
>>> places, but in this case is being called both times from
>>> `get_provider_tree_and_ensure_root`, which is also responsible for
>>> two of the inventory request.
>>>
>>> `get_provider_tree_and_ensure_root` is called by `_update` in the
>>> resource tracker.
>>>
>>> `_update` is called by both `_init_compute_node` and
>>> `_update_available_resource`. Every single period job iteration.
>>> `_init_compute_node` is called from _update_available_resource`
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> That accounts for the overall doubling.
>>
>> Actually, no. What accounts for the overall doubling is the fact that 
>> we no longer short-circuit return from _update() when there are no 
>> known changes in the node's resources.
> 
> I think we're basically agreeing on this: I'm describing the current
> state of affairs, not attempting to describe why it is that way.
> Your insight helps to explain why.
> 
> I have a set of change in progress which experiments with what
> happens if we don't call placement a second time in the _update
> call:
> 
>    https://review.openstack.org/#/c/587050/
> 
> Just to see what might blow up.
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>