On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 10:22:39 +0000 "Wang, Zhi A" <zhi.a.wang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi: > > Let me summarize the understanding so far I got from the discussions since I am new to this discussion. > > The mdev_type would be a generic stuff since we don't want userspace application to be confused. The example of mdev_type is: I don't think 'generic' is the right term here. An mdev_type is a specific thing with a defined interface, we just don't define what that interface is. > There are several pre-defined mdev_types with different configurations, let's say MDEV_TYPE A/B/C. The HW 1.0 might only support MDEV_TYPE A, the HW 2.0 might support both MDEV_TYPE A and B, but due to HW difference, we cannot migrate MDEV_TYPE A with HW 1.0 to MDEV_TYPE A with HW 2.0 even they have the same MDEV_TYPE. So we need a device version either in the existing MDEV_TYPE or a new sysfs entry. This is correct, if a foo_type_a is exposed by the same vendor driver on different hardware, then the vendor driver is guaranteeing those mdev devices are software compatible to the user. Whether the vendor driver is willing or able to support migration across the underlying hardware is a separate question. Migration compatibility and user compatibility are separate features. > Libvirt would have to check MDEV_TYPE match between source machine and destination machine, then the device version. If any of them is different, then it fails the migration. Device version of what? The hardware? The mdev? If the device version represents a different software interface, then the mdev type should be different. If the device version represents a migration interface compatibility then we should define it as such. > If my above understanding is correct, for VFIO part, we could define the device version as string or a magic number. For example, the vendor mdev driver could pass the vendor/device id and a version to VFIO and VFIO could expose them in the UUID sysfs no matter through a new sysfs entry or through existing MDEV_TYPE. As above, why are we trying to infer migration compatibility from a device version? What does a device version imply? What if a vendor driver wants to support cross version migration? > I prefer to expose it in the mdev_supported_types, since the libvirt node device list could extract the device version when it enumerating the host PCI devices or other devices, which supports mdev. We can also put it into UUID sysfs, but the user might have to first logon the target machine and then check the UUID and the device version by themselves, based on current code of libvirty. I suppose all the host device management would be in node device in libvirt, which provides remotely management of the host devices. > > For the format of a device version, an example would be: > > Vendor ID(16bit)Device ID(16bit)Class ID(16bit)Version(16bit) This is no different from the mdev type, these are user visible attributes of the device which should not change without also changing the type. Why do these necessarily convey that the migration stream is also compatible? > For string version of the device version, I guess we have to define the max string length, which is hard to say yet. Also, a magic number is easier to be put into the state data header during the migration. I don't think we've accomplished anything with this "device version". If anything, I think we're looking for a sysfs representation of a migration stream version where userspace would match the vendor, type, and migration stream version to determine compatibility. For vendor drivers that want to provide backwards compatibility, perhaps an optional minimum migration stream version would be provided, which would therefore imply that the format of the version can be parsed into a monotonically increasing value so that userspace can compare a stream produced by a source to a range supported by a target. Thanks, Alex -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
