On 2024/08/03 0:05, Peter Xu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 01:30:51PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2024/08/02 0:13, Peter Xu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 02:05:54PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2024/07/31 4:11, 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.
I think it is better to distinguish saying "having a better performance is
more important than being able to migrate this VM everywhere" from
explicitly selecting all available offload features; the latter is lot of
chores. More importantly, users may not just know these features may prevent
migration; they may just look like performance features nice to have at
first glance.
I don' think what a user would want are not individual performance knobs,
but a user is more likely to need to express the platforms they would want
to migrate VMs on. There are several possible scenarios in particular:
1) Migration everywhere
2) Migration on specific machines
3) Migration on some known platforms
4) No migration (migration on nowhere)
If a user chooses 1-3), QEMU may reject platform-dependent features even if
the user requests one; in this way, we don't need the users to make things
crystal clear, but we can expect QEMU does so.
If a user chooses 2-4), QEMU may enable all offloading features available on
the specified platforms. Again, the user will no longer have to know each
individual performance features. QEMU may also reject migration to platforms
not specified to prevent misconfiguration.
The -platform proposal earlier corresponds to 3). However it has a downside
that QEMU needs to know about platforms, which may not be trivial. In that
case, we can support 1), 2), and 4).
I'm not sure if I read it right. Perhaps you meant something more generic
than -platform but similar?
For example, "-profile [PROFILE]" qemu cmdline, where PROFILE can be either
"perf" or "compat", while by default to "compat"?
"perf" would cover 4) and "compat" will cover 1). However neither of them
will cover 2) because an enum is not enough to know about all hosts. I
presented a design that will cover 2) in:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/2da4ebcd-2058-49c3-a4ec-8e60536e5cbb@xxxxxxxxxx
"-merge-platform" shouldn't be a QEMU parameter, but should be something
separate.
Do you mean merging platform dumps should be done with another command?
I think we will want to know the QOM tree is in use when implementing
-merge-platform. For example, you cannot define a "platform" when e.g.,
you don't know what netdev backend (e.g., user, vhost-net, vhost-vdpa)
is connected to virtio-net devices. Of course we can include those
information in dumps, but we don't do so for VMState.
Yes, as you mentioned there it could be a lot of work, we may need to think
it through and collect enough input before working on something like that.
I also want to point out that "perf" should be rather named like
"nomigrate". In general, a program should expose a functional requirement on
the interface. It can then do its best to achieve high performance under
that requirement.
"nomigrate" may be inaccurate or even wrong in this case, because as long
as the features are supported on both hosts it's migratable.
Perhaps it may be named no-cross-migrate or something. There are lots of
details we need to figure out.
If so, I think I get the idea, but it'll be challenging in at least these
aspects:
- We already have (at least.. that I'm aware of) three layers of
specifying a property for a device, they are:
(1) default value
(2) compat property (from machine type definitions)
(3) qemu cmdline (specify one property explicitly)
So far, there's an order we apply these (1-3), while (3) has the top
priority to overwrite (1-2), and (2) to overwrite (1).
The new "-profile", if I read it right, introduce (4), and it's already
unclear to me how that interacts with (3) when -profile says "turn
FEAT1 on" while cmdline says otherwise.
It can make things very compilcated, IMHO.
- This still will break the "QEMU cmdline defines the guest ABI", e.g.,
consider this USO* thing that we boot an old machine type on a new
system that has QEMU+Linux USO* all enabled. We specify "-profile
perf" there. Then when we try to migrate to another older QEMU it'll
still fail the migration instead of any way telling us "migration is
not compatible". So even if it helps the user turning on knobs, it
doesn't sound like to fix the problem we're working on?
When it is named nomigrate, it is obvious that migration does not work.
I am not sure whether you meant to e.g. add a migration blocker in this
case even if migration can be supported between some hosts. But if so it
may not be wise either to block users trying to migrate where it is still
applicable. So maybe I misunderstood.
There is certainly downside and upside to add a migration blocker and I
don't have a strong opinion here.
Regards,
Akihiko Odaki
