On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 5:15 PM, Alex Xu <soulxu@gmail.com> wrote:
Balázs Gibizer <balazs.gibizer@ericsson.com> 于2019年4月10日周三 下午10:59写道：
Since providers can be nested a provider can be a strucutral element in a nested tree without providing resources.
This.
I wouldn't get too hung up on "a resource provider that doesn't provide resources". "Resource provider" is just a name of a thing. It doesn't (can't) exhaustively define what the thing is and does.
To avoid the trait on an empty RP problem in this case all the traits are added to the device RPs even if some of the traits (CUSTOM_VNIC_TYPE_XXX) are more logically belong to the agnet RP.
Noting that I have at best a cursory understanding of all things network, this seems okay to me; I can get my brain around a "network device" having a "VNIC type" trait. However...
I think the possible solution to move the trait down to the RP
provides the resources that has a capability described by the
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:38 PM, Eric Fried <openstack@fried.cc> wrote: that trait
In Matt's patch, the traits represent capabilities of the virt driver. I *suppose* you could argue to attach traits like COMPUTE_NET_ATTACH_INTERFACE to providers of network resources, or COMPUTE_VOLUME_EXTEND to providers of disk resources (even those
are
pretty awkward). But where would you put COMPUTE_TRUSTED_CERTS? And let's please not contrive non-resource resources to satisfy architectural purity.
Good point. I agree that the COMPUTE_TRUSTED_CERTS logically belong to the root RP of the compute node. So we have a specific use case: COMPUTE_TRUSTED_CERTS + NUMA requires placement to support traits on RPs that are not providing resources. Will in this case VCPU and MEMORY_MB always requested in the unnumbered group still? Or there are cases when those resources are requested in a numbered group? If the alter then we have a use case to support request groups in a_c query that only requires a trait COMPUTE_TRUSTED_CERTS but does not require any resoruces.
Maybe the problem isn't "traits on RP that are not providing resources", the problem is we don't count the resources, those traits are attach to, in the compute node. So all those virt driver capability traits are talking about the capability of VM (or say VM resources). But we don't count the number of VM, so we won't have inventory for the VM. The compute node is using the VM(or BM, but just use VM as example here) to provide the compute resources. So I think it is ok to attach those traits to the RP which provides VCPU resource.
I'm not sure I understand your proposal. Would you introduce a VM resource and then allocate 1 of that resource for each VM? Cheers, gibi