Open Stack

>> cpu_share_set in stien was used for vm emulator thread and required the instnace to be pinned for it to take effect.

>> i.e. the hw:emulator_thread_policy extra spcec currently only works if you had hw_cpu_policy=dedicated.

>> so we should not error if vcpu_pin_set and cpu_shared_set are defined, it was valid. what we can do is

>> ignore teh cpu_shared_set for schduling and not report 0 VCPUs for this host and use vcpu_pinned_set as PCPUs


Thinking of backward compatibility, I agree both of these configuration options ``cpu_shared_set``, ``vcpu_pinned_set`` should be allowed in Train release as well.


Few possible combinations in train:

A) What if only ``cpu_shared_set`` is set on a new compute node? Report VCPU inventory.


B) what if  ``cpu_shared_set`` and ``cpu_dedicated_set``  are set on a new compute node?  Report VCPU  and PCPU inventory. In fact, we want to support both these options so that instance can request both VCPU and PCPU at the same time. If flavor requests VCPU or  hw:emulator_thread_policy=share, in both the cases, it will float on CPUs set in ``cpu_shared_set`` config option.


C) What if  ``cpu_shared_set`` and ``vcpu_pin_set``  are set on a new compute node?  Ignore cpu_shared_set and report vcpu_pinned_set as VCPU or PCPU?


D) What if  ``cpu_shared_set`` and ``vcpu_pin_set``  are set on a upgraded compute node? As you have mentioned, ignore cpu_shared_set and report vcpu_pinned_set as PCPUs provided  ``NumaTopology`` ,``pinned_cpus`` attribute  is not empty otherwise VCPU.


>> we explctly do not want to have the behavior in 3 and 4 specificly the logic of checking the instances.


Here we are checking Host ``NumaTopology`` ,``pinned_cpus`` attribute  and not directly instances ( if that attribute is not empty that means some instance are running) and this logic will be needed to address above #D case.


Regards,

-Bhagyashri Shewale-

________________________________
From: Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:21:09 PM
To: Shewale, Bhagyashri; openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org; openstack at fried.cc; sfinucan at redhat.com; jaypipes at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [nova] Spec: Standardize CPU resource tracking

On Thu, 2019-06-13 at 04:42 +0000, Shewale, Bhagyashri wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> After revisiting the spec [1] again and again, I got to know few points please check and let me know about my
> understanding:
>
>
> Understanding:  If the ``vcpu_pin_set`` is set on compute node A in the Stein release then we can say that this  node
> is used to host the dedicated instance on it and if user upgrades from Stein to Train and if operator doesn’t define
> ``[compute] cpu_dedicated_set`` set then simply fallback to ``vcpu_pin_set`` and report it as PCPU inventory.
that is incorrect
if the vcpu_pin_set is defiend it may be used for instance with hw:cpu_policy=dedicated or not.
in train if vcpu_pin_set is defiend and cpu_dedicated_set is not  defiend then we use vcpu_pin_set to define the
inventory of both PCPUs and VCPUs
>
>
> Considering multiple combinations of various configuration options, I think we will need to implement below business
> rules so that the issue highlighted in the previous email about the scheduler pre-filter can be solved.
>
>
> Rule 1:
>
> If operator sets ``[compute] cpu_shared_set`` in Train.
>
> 1.If pinned instances are found then we can simply say that this compute node is used as dedicated in the previous
> release so raise an error that says to set ``[compute] cpu_dedicated_set`` config option otherwise report it as VCPU
> inventory.
cpu_share_set in stien was used for vm emulator thread and required the instnace to be pinned for it to take effect.
i.e. the hw:emulator_thread_policy extra spcec currently only works if you had hw_cpu_policy=dedicated.
so we should not error if vcpu_pin_set and cpu_shared_set are defined, it was valid. what we can do is
ignore teh cpu_shared_set for schduling and not report 0 VCPUs for this host and use vcpu_pinned_set as PCPUs

>
>
> Rule 2:
>
> If operator sets ``[compute] cpu_dedicated_set``  in Train.
>
> 1. Report inventory as PCPU
yes if cpu_dedicated_set is set we will report its value as PCPUs
>
> 2. If instances are found, check for host numa topology pinned_cpus, if pinned_cpus is not empty, that means this
> compute node is used as dedicated in the previous release and if empty, then raise an error that this compute node is
> used as shared compute node in previous release.
this was not part of the spec.
we could do this but i think its not needed and operators should check this themselves.
if we decide to do this check on startup it should only happen if vcpu_pin_set is defined.
addtionally we can log an error but we should not prevent the compute node form working and contuing to
spawn vms.
>
>
> Rule 3:
>
> If operator sets None of the options (``[compute] cpu_dedicated_set``, ``[compute] cpu_shared_set``,
> ``vcpu_pin_set``)  in Train.
>
> 1. If instances are found, check for host numa topology pinned_cpus, if  pinned_cpus is not empty, then raise an error
> that this compute node is used as dedicated compute node in previous release so set ``[compute] cpu_dedicated_set``,
> otherwise report inventory as VCPU.
again this is not in the spec and i dont think we should do this.
if none of the values are set we should report all cpus as both VCPUs and PCPUs

the vcpu_pin_set option was never intended to signal a host was used for cpu pinning it was intoduced
for cpu pinning and numa affinity but it was orignally ment to apply to floaing instance and currently
contople the number of VCPU reported to the resouce tracker which is used to set the capastiy of the VCPU inventory.
you should read https://that.guru/blog/cpu-resources/ for a walk through of this.

>
> 2. If no instances, report inventory as VCPU.
we could do this but i think it will be confusing as to what will
happen after we spawn an instnace on the host in train.
i dont think this logic should be condtional on the presence of vms.
>
>
> Rule 4:
>
> If operator sets ``vcpu_pin_set`` config option in Train.
>
> 1. If instances are found, check for host numa topology pinned_cpus, if pinned_cpus is empty, that means this compute
> node is used for non-pinned instances in the previous release, so raise an error otherwise report it as PCPU
> inventory.
agin this is not in the spec.
what the spec says for if vcpu_pin_set is defiend is we will report inventorys of both VCPU and PCPUs for all cpus in
the vcpu_pin_set
>
> 2. If no instances, report inventory as PCPU.
again this should not be condtional on the presence of vms.
>
>
> Rule 5:
>
> If operator sets ``vcpu_pin_set`` and ``[compute] cpu_dedicated_set`` or ``[compute] cpu_shared_set`` config options
> in Train
>
> 1. Simply raise an error
this is the only case were we "rasise" and error and refuse to start the compute node.
>
>
> Above business rules 3 and 4 are very important in order to solve the scheduler pre-filter issue highlighted in my
> previous email.
we explctly do not want to have the behavior in 3 and 4 specificly the logic of checking the instances.
>
>
> As of today, in either case, `vcpu_pin_set``  is set or not set on the compute node, it can used for both pinned or
> non-pinned instances depending on whether this host belongs to an aggregate with “pinned” metadata. But as per
> business rule #3 , if  ``vcpu_pin_set`` is not set,  we are considering it to be used for non-pinned instances
> only.  Do you think this could cause an issue in providing backward compatibility?
yes the rule you have listed above will cause issue for upgrades and we rejected similar rules in the spec.
i have not read your previous email which ill look at next but we spent a long time debating how this should
work in the spec design and i would prefer to stick to what the spec currently states.
>
>
> Please provide your suggestions on the above business rules.
>
>
> [1]: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/555081/28/specs/train/approved/cpu-resources.rst@409
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> -Bhagyashri Shewale-
>
> ________________________________
> From: Shewale, Bhagyashri
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 6:10:04 PM
> To: openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org; openstack at fried.cc; smooney at redhat.com; sfinucan at redhat.com;
> jaypipes at gmail.com
> Subject: [nova] Spec: Standardize CPU resource tracking
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
> Currently I am working on implementation of cpu pinning upgrade part as mentioned in the spec [1].
>
>
> While implementing the scheduler pre-filter as mentioned in [1], I have encountered one big issue:
>
>
> Proposed change in spec: In scheduler pre-filter we are going to alias request_spec.flavor.extra_spec and
> request_spec.image.properties form ``hw:cpu_policy`` to ``resources=(V|P)CPU:${flavor.vcpus}`` of existing instances.
>
>
> So when user will create a new instance  or execute instance actions like shelve, unshelve, resize, evacuate and
> migration  post upgrade it will go through scheduler pre-filter which will set alias for `hw:cpu_policy` in
> request_spec flavor ``extra specs`` and image metadata properties. In below particular case, it won’t work:-
>
>
> For example:
>
>
> I have two compute nodes say A and B:
>
>
> On Stein:
>
>
> Compute node A configurations:
>
> vcpu_pin_set=0-3 (used as dedicated CPU, This host is added in aggregate which has “pinned” metadata)
>
>
> Compute node B Configuration:
>
> vcpu_pin_set=0-3 (used as dedicated CPU, This host is added in aggregate which has “pinned” metadata)
>
>
> On Train, two possible scenarios:
>
> Compute node A configurations: (Consider the new cpu pinning implementation is merged into Train)
>
> vcpu_pin_set=0-3  (Keep same settings as in Stein)
>
>
> Compute node B Configuration: (Consider the new cpu pinning implementation is merged into Train)
>
> cpu_dedicated_set=0-3 (change to the new config option)
>
>   1.  Consider that one instance say `test ` is created using flavor having old extra specs (hw:cpu_policy=dedicated,
> "aggregate_instance_extra_specs:pinned": "true") in Stein release and now upgraded Nova to Train with the above
> configuration.
>   2.  Now when user will perform  instance action say shelve/unshelve scheduler pre-filter will change the
> request_spec flavor extra spec from ``hw:cpu_policy`` to ``resources=PCPU:$<no. of cpus>`` which ultimately will
> return only compute node B from placement service. Here, we expect it should have retuned both Compute A and Compute
> B.
>   3.  If user creates a new instance using old extra specs (hw:cpu_policy=dedicated,
> "aggregate_instance_extra_specs:pinned": "true") on Train release  with the above configuration then it will return
> only compute node B from placement service where as it should have returned both compute Node A and B.
>
> Problem: As Compute node A is still configured to be used to boot instances with dedicated CPUs same behavior as
> Stein, it will not be returned by placement service due to the changes in the scheduler pre-filter logic.
>
>
> Propose changes:
>
>
> Earlier in the spec [2]: The online data migration was proposed to change flavor extra specs and image metadata
> properties of request_spec and instance object. Based on the instance host, we can get the NumaTopology of the host
> which will contain the new configuration options set on the compute host. Based on the NumaTopology of host, we can
> change instance and request_spec flavor extra specs.
>
>   1.  Remove cpu_policy from extra specs
>   2.  Add “resources:PCPU=<count>” in extra specs
>
>
> We can also change the flavor extra specs and image metadata properties of instance and request_spec object using the
> reshape functionality.
>
>
> Please give us your feedback on the proposed solution so that we can update specs accordingly.
>
>
> [1]: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/555081/28/specs/train/approved/cpu-resources.rst@451
>
> [2]: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/555081/23..28/specs/train/approved/cpu-resources.rst
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> -Bhagyashri Shewale-
>
> Disclaimer: This email and any attachments are sent in strictest confidence for the sole use of the addressee and may
> contain legally privileged, confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise
> the sender by replying promptly to this email and then delete and destroy this email and any attachments without any
> further use, copying or forwarding.

Disclaimer: This email and any attachments are sent in strictest confidence for the sole use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged, confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender by replying promptly to this email and then delete and destroy this email and any attachments without any further use, copying or forwarding.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190614/61b98dec/attachment-0001.html>