Open Stack

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 2:30 PM Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 13:26 +0000, Sean Mooney wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 11:29 +0100, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> > > We discussed about a long known story
> > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/552924/
> > >
> > > The whole agreement during the PTG was to keep things simple with baby
> > > steps :
> > > - only supporting a few NUMA queries and defer others as unsupported
> (still
> > > supported by legacy NUMATopologyFilter)
> > > - The to-be-resurrected spec would be only focus on VCPU/PCPU/MEMORY_MB
> > > resource classes and not handle PCI or GPU devices (ie. level-1 tree,
> no
> > > children under the NUMA RPs)
> > >
> > > Agreement was also there for saying that functional tests should be
> enough
> > > since PlacementFixture already works perfectly.
> >
> > we can now do numa testing in the gate so we can also add tempest
> testing this cycle.
> > artom has recently gotten whitebox to run (more work to do
> https://review.opendev.org/#/c/691062/)
> > and i do want to get my multi numa nfv testing job
> https://review.opendev.org/#/c/679656/ at least
> > in experimental and perodic pipelines. i would like it to be in check
> eventually but baby steps.
> >
> > i dont think these should be a blocker for any of this work but i think
> we shoudl take advantage
> > of them to contiue to improve the numa testing in gate.
> by gate i ment ci/
>


Yup, I understood and we also discussed this possibility at the PTG. To be
clear, that would be nice to get Tempest tests on a specific job that'd
verify this, but this shouldn't be a blocker.

>
> > >
> > > -S
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20191112/2a38cf53/attachment.html>