[nova][ptg] Summary: Implicit trait-based filters

Bal√°zs Gibizer balazs.gibizer at ericsson.com
Tue May 7 07:19:55 UTC 2019



On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 8:03 PM, Eric Fried <openstack at fried.cc> wrote:
> Summary:
> In keeping with the first proposed cycle theme [1] (though we didn't
> land on that until later in the PTG), we would like to be able to add
> required traits to the GET /allocation_candidates query to reduce the
> number of results returned - i.e. do more filtering in placement 
> rather
> than in the scheduler (or worse, the compute). You can already do this
> by explicitly adding required traits to flavor/image; we want to be 
> able
> to do it implicitly based on things like:
> - If the instance requires multiattach, make sure it lands on a 
> compute
> that supports multiattach [2].
> - If the image is in X format, make sure it lands on a compute that 
> can
> read X format [3].
> 
> Currently the proposals in [2],[3] work by modifying the
> RequestSpec.flavor right before select_destinations calls GET
> /allocation_candidates. This just happens to be okay because we don't
> persist that copy of the flavor back to the instance (which we 
> wouldn't
> want to do, since we don't want these implicit additions to e.g. show 
> up
> when we GET server details, or to affect other lifecycle operations).
> 
> But this isn't a robust design.
> 
> What we would like to do instead is exploit the
> RequestSpec.requested_resources field [4] as it was originally 
> intended,
> accumulating all the resource/trait/aggregate/etc. criteria from the
> flavor, image, *and* request_filter-y things like the above. However,
> gibi started on this [5] and it turns out to be difficult to express 
> the
> unnumbered request group in that field for... reasons.

Sorry that I was not able to describe the problems with the approach on 
the PTG. I will try now in a mail.

So this patch [5] tries to create the unnumbered group in 
RequestSpec.requested_resources based on the other fields (flavor, 
image ..) in the RequestSpec early enough that the above mentioned 
pre-filters can add traits to this group instead of adding it the the 
flavor extra_spec.

The current sequence is the following:
* RequestSpec is created in three diffefent ways
1) RequestSpec.from_components(): used during server create. (and cold 
migrate if legacy compute is present)
2) RequestSpec.from_primitives(): deprecated but still used during 
re-schedule
3) RequestSpec.__init__(): oslo OVO deepcopy calls __init__ then copies 
over every field one by one.

* Before nova scheduler sends the Placement a_c query it calls 
nova.scheduler.utils.resources_from_request_spec(RequestSpec) that code 
use the RequesSpec fields and collect all the request groups and all 
the other parameters (e.g. limit, group_policy)

What we would need at the end:
* When the RequetSpec is created in any way we need to populate the 
RequestSpec.requested_resources field based on the other RequestSpec 
fields. Note that __init__ cannot be used for this as all three 
instantiation of the object creates an empty object first with __init__ 
then pupulates the fields later one by one.
* When any of the interesting fields (flavor, image, is_bvf, force_*, 
...) is updated on the RequestSpec the request groups in 
RequestSpec.requested_resources needs to be updated to reflect the 
change. However we have to be careful not to blindly re-generate such 
data as the unnumbered group migh already contain traits that are not 
coming form any of these direct sources but coming from the above 
mentioned implicit required traits code paths.
* When the Placement a_c query is generated it needs to be generated 
from RequestSpec.requested_resources

There are couple of problems:
1) Detecting a change of a RequestSpec field cannot be done via 
wrapping the field in a propery due to OVO limitations [6]. Even if it 
would be possible the way we create the RequestSpec object (init an 
empty object then set fields one by one) the field setters might be 
called on an incomplete object.
2) Regeneration of RequestSpec.requested_resources would need to 
distinguish between data that can be regenerated from the other fields 
of the RequestSpec and the traits added from outside (implicit required 
traits).
3) The request pre-filters [7] run before the placement a_c query is 
generated. But these today changes the fields of the RequestSpec (e.g. 
requested_destination) that would mean the regeneration of 
RequestSpec.requested_resources would be needed. This probably solvable 
by changing the pre-filters to work directly on 
RequestSpec.requested_resources after we solved all the other issues.
4) The numbered request groups can come from multiple places. When it 
comes from the Flavor the number is stable as provided by the person 
created the Flavor. But when it comes from a Neutron port the number is 
generated (the next unoccupied int). So a re-generation of such groups 
would potentially re-numbed the groups. This makes the debuging hard as 
well as mapping numbered group back to the entity it requested the 
resource (port) after allocation. This probably solvable by using the 
proposed placement extension that allows a string in the numbered group 
name instead of just a single int. [8] This way the port uuid can be 
used as the identity for the numbered group to make the indenity stable.

Cheers,
gibi


[6] https://bugs.launchpad.net/oslo.versionedobjects/+bug/1821619
[7] 
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/request_filter.py
[8] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2005575

> 
> Action:
> Since gibi is going to be pretty occupied and unlikely to have time to
> resolve [5], aspiers has graciously (been) volunteered to take it 
> over;
> and then follow [2] and [3] to use that mechanism once it's available.

Aspier, ping me if you want to talk about these in IRC.

Cheers,
gibi

> 
> efried
> 
> [1]
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=07226944-5ba84bad-072229df-0cc47ad93e2e-db879b26751dd159&u=https://review.opendev.org/#/c/657171/1/priorities/train-priorities.rst@13
> [2] 
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=6793d282-3b19f06b-67939219-0cc47ad93e2e-b61d4c15f019d018&u=https://review.opendev.org/#/c/645316/
> [3]
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=975e0f6d-cbd42d84-975e4ff6-0cc47ad93e2e-9cf6144999db0dfb&u=https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:bp/request-filter-image-types+(status:open+OR+status:merged)
> [4]
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=495a140e-15d036e7-495a5495-0cc47ad93e2e-745cad547e47b7cc&u=https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/src/commit/5934c5dc6932fbf19ca7f3011c4ccc07b0038ac4/nova/objects/request_spec.py#L93-L100
> [5] 
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=733c10d0-2fb63239-733c504b-0cc47ad93e2e-25f07d70c4385f31&u=https://review.opendev.org/#/c/647396/
> 




More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list