13:05:06 <baoli> #startmeeting PCI passthrough
13:05:06 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Mar 25 13:05:06 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is baoli. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:05:07 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
13:05:09 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'pci_passthrough'
13:05:56 <baoli> Hi
13:08:06 <baoli> Hi heyongli
13:08:09 <heyongli> hi
13:08:27 <irenab> hi
13:08:33 <baoli> Hi Irenab
13:08:56 <irenab> sorry being late, didn't pay attention that was disconnected
13:08:58 <baoli> We can start with irenab's doc on use cases
13:09:17 <irenab> sure
13:09:28 <baoli> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zgMaXqrCnad01-jQH7Mkmf6amlghw9RMScGLBrKslmw/edit
13:09:41 <rkukura> hi - I’m here, but not able to pay 100% attention
13:09:58 <baoli> rkukura, thanks for getting up early
13:10:13 <rkukura> woke up at 4:00 AM
13:10:31 <heyongli> too early for you
13:10:50 <irenab> rkukura: appretiate it
13:15:31 <sadasu> I was about 9 mins late
13:15:37 <sadasu> not sure what was discussed
13:16:00 <baoli> sadasu, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zgMaXqrCnad01-jQH7Mkmf6amlghw9RMScGLBrKslmw/edit
13:16:07 <sadasu> I can't gather context from the last 5 mins that I am logged in
13:16:52 <baoli> Any comments on the doc?
13:17:16 <irenab> sadasu: discussion on use case doc
13:18:03 <sadasu> I need we need to add information on why and how device selection happens
13:18:15 <sadasu> I think that would be part of the use case
13:18:23 <heyongli> first things, this is for sriov use case, i'm ok with sriov use case, and for support sriov, there need some other use case to be considerated, and i like to put them to nova side bp for common support
13:18:41 <irenab> sadsu: it is just initial doc to put the list of use cases, we can then enter into more details
13:18:56 <heyongli> so nova side support be common , include the sriov use case
13:19:30 <sadasu> ireanb: agreed…just giving input on what can be added next
13:20:03 <sadasu> heyongli: yes, we can add non-sriov use case too
13:20:20 <heyongli> sadasu, i don't mean add them to this doc
13:20:26 <irenab> heyongli: agree with you. I just feel that SR-IOV networking devices have quite special use cases
13:20:48 <sadasu> heyongli: just re-read….lets not spread out info in diff places
13:20:51 <heyongli> i like to keep the sriov case as sriov, just ensure common pci design can support this
13:21:07 <sadasu> we had originally discussed that we will capture all use cases in one place...
13:21:44 <sadasu> you can dive into a lot of depth in a diff doc but lets at least capture all use cases in one place
13:21:59 <irenab> sadasu: I thought we mean SR-IOV/networking use cases
13:22:09 <heyongli> i just think,  sriov discuss get sriov use case clear,
13:22:17 <heyongli> yeah, irenab, +1
13:23:04 <heyongli> pci changes should also keep common pci use case move forward, and i'm here hope to make the pci common part support SRIOV
13:23:21 <irenab> after going into details on updated nova bp, I think it has enough details both for generic and SR-IOV use cases
13:23:22 <sadasu> don't you think at least the top level use cases should be in one place to give the impression we work together?
13:24:11 <irenab> sadasu: I think Heyongli's bp includes SR-IOV cases from nova perspective
13:24:38 <sadasu> ok…I am lost here...
13:24:46 <irenab> but for example mettering use case is something special for networking and not related to nova at all
13:24:53 <sadasu> I understand that this information exists in other places...
13:25:06 <heyongli> sadasu, to prevent icehouse's endless discuss keep going, i very want the discussion and work can be parttion easily
13:25:13 <sadasu> I thought we are coming up with a way to present during the summit...
13:25:29 <irenab> maybe we need to return to the initial intention form setting new doc to capture SR-IOV use cases
13:25:48 <irenab> ^for
13:26:12 <sadasu> I thought we are having a generic nova/neutron joint session where we discuss top level use cases, SR-IOV and non-SR-IOV
13:26:30 <sadasu> put it in a format that would eventually end up in an etherpad
13:27:04 <sadasu> then we dive into a lot more detail for SR-IOV in a neutron session and non-se-iov case in nova session
13:27:06 <heyongli> i doubt and worry a big design will block the process
13:27:49 <irenab> Do you think non networking SR-IOV case needs discussion?
13:27:55 <sadasu> exactly for that reason, please don't start with splitting because this big design will affect all use-cases
13:28:19 <irenab> seems the most challanges and requests for changes come from networking cases
13:28:56 <irenab> sadasu: please suggest how to proceed
13:29:11 <sadasu> irenab: I am predicting we will have a big discussion about flavor, host aggregate
13:29:12 <heyongli> sadasu, the design won't impact the use case, the use case impact the design might, so it might ok to keep them split and less couple
13:29:38 <sadasu> lets get this taken care of first..that was the biggest blocker for Icehouse
13:30:29 <sadasu> for that discussion to happen, lets capture all use cases in one place at high level
13:30:37 <irenab> I think I understand sadasu's concern. Need to take into account both non-networking and networking use cases to impact the overall approach
13:30:42 <heyongli> agree, but do we already agree the flavor should be there? and for aggregate , it's might be the holder of flavor.
13:31:02 <sadasu> after that point, we can split it and get into more detail for sr-iov
13:31:09 <heyongli> agree for the biggest blocker
13:31:44 <baoli> should we focus on individual use cases, document them one at a time. and then we can decide to put them together or not.
13:31:54 <sadasu> I am not picking an approach here…I think we should present them all
13:31:56 <irenab> baoli: +1
13:32:38 <baoli> irenab, in that regard, I felt that the doc should provide detailed use cases.
13:33:14 <irenab> baoli: agree, it was the initial version to put the list of use cases that should be covered.
13:33:40 <sadasu> to prove that a particular solution that we are presenting is taking care of all use cases, we should put them all together and present together
13:34:27 <baoli> Also, I don't think reference to flavor is appropriate because use cases are better not to be tailored to specific implementation at this point.
13:34:28 <sadasu> by particular solution I am specifically talking about flavor and host aggregate debates again
13:35:07 <sadasu> baoli: agreed..
13:35:34 <sadasu> irenab: the doc is talking about flavor in the use cases when that is actually part of a proposed solution
13:35:47 <irenab> I used term flavor for abstract definition for different categories of devices, just didn't find better name
13:35:48 <heyongli> i more prefer revise current design, no revolution current design so i prefer a graduate way to achive that,if possible
13:36:03 <sadasu> we are actually just looking for a way for the admin to specify a group of devices that satisfy a specific criteria
13:36:42 <irenab> guys, the doc is open for editing, so  all can add  more use cases or  modify
13:37:31 <baoli> irenab, so start with a good format to present each use case and people can start adding.
13:38:04 <beagles> I admit to being a bit confused. Is there a particular issue with what sadasu is saying? Also is there a particular issue with using irenab's document as a starting point? I feel I am missing something
13:38:05 <irenab> its possible to add gloassary for the doc and explain that flavor is  group of devices that satisfy a specific criteria . Would it do the job?
13:38:49 <sadasu> beagles: no issue with irenab's doc
13:39:07 <beagles> I would agree that it would be best if we were "armed" with ideas and information on how respond to hard questions about impacts and how it is all going to hang together
13:39:14 <sadasu> on the other hand there is a proposal to split use cases into 2 separate docs
13:39:33 <sadasu> so pushing to capture all of them in irenab's doc
13:39:51 <heyongli> irenab, that's might just be current flavor? it can not avoid to say how to specify 'criteria' things
13:40:22 <baoli> For example, heyongli talks about a use case in one of his recent emails: an image only runs on a certain hardware from a particular vendor.
13:40:26 <sadasu> heyongli: yes we can talk about flavor in the design section...
13:40:36 <beagles> oh.. ahh... mmmm why would we want to do that? We can certainly assemble them into something comprehensive... if they don't mesh, my "feeling" is that we would be missing something.
13:40:54 <heyongli> sadasu, not just split to 2 docs, i kind of prefer non use case don't impact sriov, if possible, might small bp to achieve our goal.
13:40:55 <irenab> heyongli: I think baoli want to keep the description without stating the approach
13:40:58 <beagles> kind of a naive and vague point of view... I know :)
13:41:00 <sadasu> not while specifying use cases…because potentially that problem can be solved in multiple ways, flavor being one of them
13:42:00 <sadasu> beagles: agreed
13:42:10 <baoli> so the format can be: name, summary, detailed description, if necessary a diagram for illustration purpose.
13:42:53 <sadasu> baoli: +1
13:43:03 <irenab> baoli: I'll add the format according to the traditioanl UML use case template, we can drop what is not relevant. Will do it after the meeting
13:43:22 <baoli> irenab,  that sounds great!
13:44:13 <sadasu> heyongli: how the BP pans out is different from a consistent design, don't u think?
13:44:17 <baoli> I hope that people can start adding/commenting to the doc.
13:44:26 <irenab> Does some one has more use cases to add or any suggestion on doc organization?
13:44:27 <sadasu> beagles : +1
13:45:08 <sadasu> ireanb: VM with high throughput, no live migration
13:45:25 <sadasu> VM with medium throughput, with live migration
13:45:50 <beagles> irenab, I have some vague ideas on doc organization, but I'd like to ruminate a bit and maybe throw some ideas around instead of wasting meeting time
13:45:51 <sadasu> VM with mixture of SR-IOV port +PCI passthrough storage device
13:46:29 <sadasu> VM with one SR-IOV port with regular non-SR-IOV port
13:46:31 <beagles> I had a similar issue with the parity work.. a bunch of disjoint pieces spread all over and followed a bunch of ways. I could never find a way that I felt wasn't awkward as hell
13:46:56 <irenab> baeagles: would be great
13:47:27 <sadasu> beagles: +1
13:48:17 <sadasu> ireanb: until we figure out the final format, we can add the list of use cases in your doc
13:49:04 <baoli> so recap: we'll finalize the doc organization, and then people add/comment use cases into the doc.
13:49:06 <beagles> sadasu, yeah.. I think right now it would be good to keep things in one place and then break out and organize. It is easier than going the other way, where things might get missed
13:49:11 <irenab> sadasu: great
13:50:51 <irenab> I think the non networking use cases can be in nova bp for now, at least till we figure out the details of networking SR-IOV related use case.
13:51:47 <irenab> heyongli: what to you think?
13:52:14 <heyongli> i just don't know if one big design will get core's attention
13:52:58 <irenab> my feeling was that non networking PCI staff was already in and we want to add networking use cases support
13:53:23 <heyongli> can't agree with you more irenab
13:53:40 <irenab> but it can be good to see all use cases defined anyway
13:54:26 <heyongli> non networking stuff also need improve, i just don't want it to be part of sriov, but i do like you can take that as a factor
13:55:42 <beagles> in this phase would it have to be more than a mention of how they don't interfere and are handled in a consistent fashion.. and maybe that it would be a valid test point?
13:56:03 <irenab> so next step, I'll add template for use case description, anyone adds use cases that are relevant. Am I right?
13:56:16 <sadasu_> yes
13:56:19 <beagles> s'cool with me
13:56:28 <baoli> cool
13:56:43 <heyongli> also fine to me
13:56:52 <irenab> great
13:57:25 <irenab> baoli: wanted to check if you plan some further work on your nova patch till Juno summit
13:58:06 <heyongli> in case something changed in our discuss, any patch update seems ... i don't know that
13:58:09 <baoli> irenab, I don't have a plan yet. It purpose is to facilitate integration with neutron
13:59:17 <baoli> heyongli, please take a look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/82206/ when you have a chance.
13:59:22 <irenab> I think it can help to promote it to Juno, nova parts take a lot of time to get in
13:59:51 <heyongli> baoli, i look at it today but not feedback yet
14:00:01 <heyongli> i will spend more time on it
14:00:17 <sadasu_> heyongli: what little BP were you talking about earlier?
14:00:22 <baoli> heyongli, thanks. we need to come up with a resolution.
14:00:46 <heyongli> sadasu_, i want to split big bp to small one, if possible
14:00:56 <heyongli> in my plan
14:01:32 <baoli> time is up. I have to end this meeting now. Expecting to see the use case doc format so that we can start contributing.
14:01:38 <baoli> #endmeeting