Am 11.03.22 um 16:24 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
Am 11.03.22 um 15:56 schrieb Daniel P. Berrangé:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 03:52:57PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 11.03.22 um 14:08 schrieb Daniel P. Berrangé:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:37:46PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 01:12:35PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 11.03.22 um 10:23 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
On 11.03.22 10:17, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:17:38PM -0500, Collin Walling wrote:
CPU models past gen16a will no longer support the csske feature. In
order to secure migration of guests running on machines that still
support this feature to machines that do not, let's disable csske
in the host-model.
Sorry to say, removing CPU features is a no-go when wanting to guarantee
forward migration without taking care about CPU model details manually
and simply using the host model. Self-made HW vendor problem.
And this simply does not reflect reality. Intel and Power have removed TX
for example. We can now sit back and please ourselves how we live in our
world of dreams. Or we can try to define an interface that deals with
reality and actually solves problems.
This proposal wouldn't have helped in the case of Intel removing
TSX, because it was removed without prior warning in the middle
of the product lifecycle. At that time there were already millions
of VMs in existance using the removed feature.
The problem scenario you describe is the intended semantics of
host-model though. It enables all features available in the host
that you launched on. It lets you live migrate to a target host
with the same, or a greater number of features. If the target has
a greater number of features, it should restrict the VM to the
subset of features that were present on the original source CPU.
If the target has fewer features, then you simply can't live
migrate a VM using host-model.
To get live migration in both directions across CPUs with differing
featuresets, then the VM needs to be configured with a named CPU
model that is a subset of both, rather than host-model.
Right, and cpu-model-baseline does that job for you if you're lazy to
lookup the proper model.
Yes baseline will work, but this requires tooling like openstack. The normal
user will just use the default and this is host-model.
Let me explain the usecase for this feature. Migration between different versins
baseline: always works
host-passthrough: you get what you deserve
default model: works
We have disabled CSSKE from our default models (-cpu gen15a will not present csske).
So that works as well.
host-model: Also works for all machines that have csske.
Now: Lets say gen17 will no longer support this. That means that we can not migrate
host-model from gen16 or gen15 because those will have csske.
What options do we have? If we disable csske in the host capabilities that would mean
that a host compare against an xml from an older QEMU would fail (even if you move
from gen14 to gen14). So this is not a good option.
By disabling deprecated features ONLY for the _initial_ expansion of model-model, but
keeping it in the host capabilities you can migrate existing guests (with the
feature) as we only disable in the expansion, but manually asking for it still works.
AND it will allow to move this instantiation of the guest to future machines without
the feature. Basically everything works.
The change you proposal works functionally, but none the less it is
changing the semantics of host-model. It is defined to expose all the
features in the host, and the proposal changes yet. If an app actually
/wants/ to use the deprecated feature and it exists in the host, then
host-model should be allowing that as it does today.
The problem scenario you describe is ultimately that OpenStack does
not have a future proof default CPU choice. Libvirt and QEMU provide
a mechanism for them to pick other CPU models that would address the
problem, but they're not using that. The challenge is that OpenStack
defaults currently are a zero-interaction thing.
They could retain their zero-interaction defaults, if at install time
they queried the libvirt capabilities to learn which named CPU models
are available, whereupon they could decide to use gen15a. The main
challenge here is that the list of named CPU models is an unordered
set, so it is hard to programatically figure out which of the available
named CPU models is the newest/best/recommended.
IOW, what's missing is a way for apps to easily identify that 'gen15a'
is the best CPU to use on the host, without needing human interaction.
I think this could be solved with a change to query-cpu-definitions
in QEMU, to add an extra 'recommended: bool' attribute to the
CpuDefinitionInfo struct. This would be defined to be only set for
1 CPU model in the list, and would reflect the recommended CPU model
given the current version of QEMU, kernel and hardware. Or we could
allow 'recommended' to be set for more than 1 CPU, provided we define
an explicit ordering of returned CPU models.
I like the recommended: bool attribute. It should provide what we need.
Would you then also suggest to use this for host-model or only for a new
type like "host-recommended" ?
Neither of those. Libvirt would simply report this attribute in
the information it exposes about CPUs.
OpenStack would explicitly extract this and set it in the XML
for the guest, so that each guest's view of "recommended" is
fixed from the time that guest is first created, rather than
potentially changing on each later boots.
Openstack is one thing, but I think this flag would really be useful
for instantiation without open stack.
To make things more clear. I would like to have a way where a virsh start of a
guest xml without CPU model would work for migration in as many scenarios as
possible. And if the default model (today host-model) would ignore features that
are not recommended, this would be perfect.
