On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 02:29:15PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 08.11.19 14:10, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 01:56:47PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08.11.19 12:52, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 12:49:23PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 08.11.19 12:43, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 11:49:01AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>>>> On 02.11.19 11:32, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 06:43:16PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On the KVM forum I have discussed the default cpu model mode on s390.
> >>>>>>>> Right now if the xml does not specify anything, libvirt defaults to
> >>>>>>>> not specifying anything on the qemu command line (no -cpu statement)
> >>>>>>>> which is the equivalent of -cpu host for s390 which is equivalent to
> >>>>>>>> host-passthrough. While this enables all features it does not provide
> >>>>>>>> any migration safety by default.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So in fact we are kind of "broken" right now when it comes to safery.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So we discussed that it would make sense that an empty xml should actually
> >>>>>>>> be defaulted to host-model, which results in - as of today - the same guest
> >>>>>>>> features but in a migration safe way.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There is another change planned right now to actually make the cpu model
> >>>>>>>> present in an xml if none was specified. So we could actually do this change
> >>>>>>>> before, together or after te other. Jiri and I think it probably makes most
> >>>>>>>> sense to have both changes at the same time (in terms of libvirt version).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Does anyone see an issue with changing the default model mode to "host-model"
> >>>>>>>> if the xml does not specify anything else?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Changing from "host-passthrough" to "host-model" is not a huge difference,
> >>>>>>> but it is none the less a guest ABI change. "host-passthrough" doesn't
> >>>>>>> provide migration safety in the face of differing hardware, it should still
> >>>>>>> be valid for people with homogeneous hardware. So changing the model will
> >>>>>>> potentially break some existing usage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I guess on s390x this is not the case ("-cpu host", no "-cpu", and passing
> >>>>>> the expanded "host" model will result in the same guest ABI, in contrast to
> >>>>>> x86 AFAIK). There is this special case, though, where we have old QEMUs
> >>>>>> without CPU model support. Not sure how to deal with that, then.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm still not sure I understand the s390 CPU ABI rules.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Current libvirt, no <cpu>, and thus no -cpu.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IIUC this is functionally identical to using "-cpu host" and/or
> >>>>> <cpu mode="host-passthrough"/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you are using "-cpu host" / <cpu mode="host-passthrough"> can you
> >>>>> live migrate to another host with identical physical CPUs + firmware ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Assuming this is possible, then, can you live migrate a QEMU guest
> >>>>> booted with <cpu mode="host-passthrough">, to a QEMU guest booted
> >>>>> with <cpu mode="host-model"> ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Not sure I understand your question. With "can", do you mean "the guest
> >>>> has the same guest visible CPU features and types"?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I mean the migration should succeed from QEMU's POV and additionally
> >>> the guest OS should not see any change in CPU ABI exposed from the host.
> >>
> >> The guest ABI is the same and migration also seems to work.
> >> I think your concern boils down to the case that source and target
> >> have a different libvirt version (but qemu and kernel and firmware
> >> and hardware are identical). So for that case this change would break
> >> things if host-model and host-passthrough are not identical.
> >> So as of today we have no concern.
> >>
> >> Now: Would it be a concern if a future QEMU decides to change that
> >> equivalence somehow?
> >
> > If they're the same guest ABI, then what's the benefit in changing the
> > default to "host-model" instead of just continuing with "host-passthrough".
> > It seems like we're fine to just carry on with "host-passthrough" as
> > the default and insulate ourselves from any future risk of change.
>
> The benefit is that that todays default is not migration safe and users will
> find that out by random guest crashes if any of the parameters (CPU, kernel,
> qemu, firmware) is different. So really, todays default is just completely
> broken on s390 and thats why I want to change it.
>
> host-model instead is expanded by libvirt and the migration will be rejected
> if the target is incompatible (qemu will reject to run).
Ok, so both host-model and host-passthrough end up expanding to the same
named CPU model eventually.
The only difference that in host-model case the expansion is done by libvirt
& we can validate compat before migration, whereas in the host-passthrough
case the expansion is done by QEMU and thus there's no migration validation.
With this behaviour I think we're safe in having libvirt update the XML to
report host-model when the mgmt app doesn't provide a CPU model in the XML
explicitly.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
