[...] > > > > ^this is the thing we constantly keep discussing as everyone has a slightly > > different angle of view - libvirt does not implement any kind of policy, > > therefore the only "configuration" would be the PCI parent placement - you say > > what to do and we do it, no logic in it, that's it. Now, I don't understand > > taking care of the guesswork for the user in the simplest manner possible as > > policy rather as a mere convenience, be it just for developers and testers, but > > even that might apparently be perceived as a policy and therefore unacceptable. > > > > I still stand by idea of having auto-creation as unfortunately, I sort of still > > fail to understand what the negative implications of having it are - is that it > > would get just unnecessarily too complex to maintain in the future that we would > > regret it or that we'd get a huge amount of follow-up requests for extending the > > feature or is it just that simply the interpretation of auto-create == policy? > > The increasing complexity of the qemu driver is a significant concern with > adding policy based logic to the code. THinking about this though, if we > provide the inactive node device feature, then we can avoid essentially > all new code and complexity QEMU driver, and still support auto-create. > > ie, in the domain XML we just continue to have the exact same XML that > we already have today for mdevs, but with a single new attribute > autocreate=yes|no > > <devices> > <hostdev mode='subsystem' type='mdev' model='vfio-pci' autocreate="yes"> > <source> > <address uuid='c2177883-f1bb-47f0-914d-32a22e3a8804'> So, just for clarification of the concept, the device with ^this UUID will have had to be defined by the nodedev API by the time we start to edit the domain XML in this manner in which case the only thing the autocreate=yes would do is to actually create the mdev according to the nodedev config, right? Continuing with that thought, if UUID doesn't refer to any of the inactive configs it will be an error I suppose? What about the fact that only one vgpu type can live on the GPU? even if you can successfully identify a device using the UUID in this way, you'll still face the problem, that other types might be currently occupying the GPU and need to be torn down first, will this be automated as well in what you suggest? I assume not. > </source> > </hostdev> > </devices> > > In the QEMU driver, then the only change required is > > if (def->autocreate) > virNodeDeviceCreate(dev) Aha, so if a device gets torn down on shutdown, we won't face the problem with some other devices being active, all of them will have to be in the inactive state because they got torn down during the last shutdown - that would work. Erik -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
