On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 03:11:03PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 07:46:12PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 02:13:51PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 06:26:41PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 01:00:30PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 04:58:03PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > We've got two mutually conflicting goals with the machine type > > > > > > definitions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Primarily we use them to ensure stable ABI, but an important > > > > > > secondary goal is to enable new tunables to have new defaults > > > > > > set, without having to update every mgmt app. The latter > > > > > > works very well when the defaults have no dependancy on the > > > > > > platform kernel/OS, but breaks migration when they do have a > > > > > > platform dependancy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Firstly, never quietly flipping any bit that affects the ABI... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Have a default value of off, then QEMU will always allow the VM to boot > > > > > > > by default, while advanced users can opt-in on new features. We can't > > > > > > > make this ON by default otherwise some VMs can already fail to boot, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - If the host doesn't support the feature while the cmdline enabled it, > > > > > > > it needs to fail QEMU boot rather than flipping, so that it says "hey, > > > > > > > this host does not support running such VM specified, due to XXX > > > > > > > feature missing". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the only way an user could understand what happened, and IMHO that's > > > > > > > a clean way that we stick with QEMU cmdline on defining the guest ABI, > > > > > > > while in which the machine type is the fundation of such definition, as the > > > > > > > machine type can decides many of the rest compat properties. And that's > > > > > > > the whole point of the compat properties too (to make sure the guest ABI is > > > > > > > stable). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If kernel breaks it easily, all compat property things that we maintain can > > > > > > > already stop making sense in general, because it didn't define the whole > > > > > > > guest ABI.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So AFAIU that's really what we used for years, I hope I didn't overlook > > > > > > > somehting. And maybe we don't yet need the "-platform" layer if we can > > > > > > > keep up with this rule? > > > > > > > > > > > > We've failed at this for years wrt enabling use of new defaults that have > > > > > > a platform depedancy, so historical practice isn't a good reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are 100's (possibly 1000's) of tunables set implicitly as part of > > > > > > the machine type, and of those, libvirt likely only exposes a few 10's > > > > > > of tunables. The vast majority are low level details that no mgmt app > > > > > > wants to know about, they just want to accept QEMU's new defaults, > > > > > > while preserving machine ABI. This is a good thing. No one wants the > > > > > > burden of wiring up every single tunable into libvirt and mgmt apps. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what the "-platform" concept would be intended to preserve. It > > > > > > would allow a way to enable groups of settings that have a platform level > > > > > > dependancy, without ever having to teach either libvirt or the mgmt apps > > > > > > about the individual tunables. > > > > > > > > > > Do you think we can achieve similar goal by simply turning the feature to > > > > > ON only after a few QEMU releases? I also mentioned that idea below. > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/ZqQNKZ9_OPhDq2AK@x1n > > > > > > > > > > So far it really sounds like the right thing to do to me to fix all similar > > > > > issues, even without introducing anything new we need to maintain. > > > > > > > > Turning a feature with a platform dependency to "on" implies that > > > > the machine type will cease to work out of the box for platforms > > > > which lack the feature. IMHO that's not acceptable behaviour for > > > > any of our supported platforms. > > > > > > Right, that's why I was thinking whether we should just always be on the > > > safe side, even if I just replied in the other email to Akihiko, that we do > > > have the option to make this more aggresive by turning those to ON after > > > even 1-2 years or even less.. and we have control of how aggressive this > > > can be. > > > > > > > > > > > IOW, "after a few QEMU releases" implies a delay of as much as > > > > 5 years, while we wait for platforms which don't support the > > > > feature to drop out of our supported targets list. I don't > > > > think that'll satisfy the desire to get the new feature > > > > available to users as soon as practical for their particular > > > > platform. > > > > > > The feature is always available since the 1st day, right? We just need the > > > user to opt-in, by specifying ON in the cmdline. > > > > > > That'll be my take on this that QEMU's default VM setup should be always > > > bootable, migratable, and so on. Then user opt-in on stuff like this one, > > > where there's implication on the ABIs. The "user" can also include > > > Libvirt. I mean when something is really important, Libvirt should, IMHO, > > > opt-in by treating that similarly like many cpu properties, and by probing > > > the host first. > > > > > > IIUC there aren't a lot of things like that (part of guest ABI & host > > > kernel / HW dependent), am I right? Otherwise I would expect more failures > > > like this one, but it isn't as much as that yet. IIUC it means the efforts > > > to make Libvirt get involved should be hopefully under control too. The > > > worst case is Libvirt doesn't auto-on it, but again the user should always > > > have the option to turn it on when it's necessary. > > > > If it is left to libvirt, then it would very likely end up being a user > > opt-in, not auto-enabled. > > Not sure whether there's other opinions, but that's definitely fine by me. > > I think it even makes more sense, as even if Libvirt probed the host and > auto-on the feature, it also means Libvirt made a decision for the user, > saying "having a better performance" is more important than "being able to > migrate this VM everywhere". > > I don't see a way that can make such fair decision besides requesting the > user to opt-in always for those, then the user is fully aware what is > enabled, with the hope that when a migration fails later with "target host > doesn't support feature XXX" the user is crystal clear on what happened. > > Thanks, > > -- > Peter Xu This is not what we did historically. Why should we start now? -- MST
