On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 02:29:07AM +0100, Sean Mooney wrote: > On Thu, 2020-08-20 at 08:39 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:36:52AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:16:28 +0100 > > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:01:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > On 2020/8/18 下午4:55, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:24:30AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/8/14 下午1:16, Yan Zhao wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:24:50PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/8/10 下午3:46, Yan Zhao wrote: > > > > > we actually can also retrieve the same information through sysfs, .e.g > > > > > > > > > > |- [path to device] > > > > > |--- migration > > > > > | |--- self > > > > > | | |---device_api > > > > > | | |---mdev_type > > > > > | | |---software_version > > > > > | | |---device_id > > > > > | | |---aggregator > > > > > | |--- compatible > > > > > | | |---device_api > > > > > | | |---mdev_type > > > > > | | |---software_version > > > > > | | |---device_id > > > > > | | |---aggregator > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but: > > > > > > > > > > - You need one file per attribute (one syscall for one attribute) > > > > > - Attribute is coupled with kobject > > > > > > Is that really that bad? You have the device with an embedded kobject > > > anyway, and you can just put things into an attribute group? > > > > > > [Also, I think that self/compatible split in the example makes things > > > needlessly complex. Shouldn't semantic versioning and matching already > > > cover nearly everything? I would expect very few cases that are more > > > complex than that. Maybe the aggregation stuff, but I don't think we > > > need that self/compatible split for that, either.] > > > > Hi Cornelia, > > > > The reason I want to declare compatible list of attributes is that > > sometimes it's not a simple 1:1 matching of source attributes and target attributes > > as I demonstrated below, > > source mdev of (mdev_type i915-GVTg_V5_2 + aggregator 1) is compatible to > > target mdev of (mdev_type i915-GVTg_V5_4 + aggregator 2), > > (mdev_type i915-GVTg_V5_8 + aggregator 4) > the way you are doing the nameing is till really confusing by the way > if this has not already been merged in the kernel can you chagne the mdev > so that mdev_type i915-GVTg_V5_2 is 2 of mdev_type i915-GVTg_V5_1 instead of half the device > > currently you need to deived the aggratod by the number at the end of the mdev type to figure out > how much of the phsicial device is being used with is a very unfridly api convention > > the way aggrator are being proposed in general is not really someting i like but i thin this at least > is something that should be able to correct. > > with the complexity in the mdev type name + aggrator i suspect that this will never be support > in openstack nova directly requireing integration via cyborg unless we can pre partion the > device in to mdevs staicaly and just ignore this. > > this is way to vendor sepecif to integrate into something like openstack in nova unless we can guarentee > taht how aggreator work will be portable across vendors genericly. > > > > > and aggragator may be just one of such examples that 1:1 matching does not > > fit. > for openstack nova i dont see us support anything beyond the 1:1 case where the mdev type does not change. > hi Sean, I understand it's hard for openstack. but 1:N is always meaningful. e.g. if source device 1 has cap A, it is compatible to device 2: cap A, device 3: cap A+B, device 4: cap A+B+C .... to allow openstack to detect it correctly, in compatible list of device 2, we would say compatible cap is A; device 3, compatible cap is A or A+B; device 4, compatible cap is A or A+B, or A+B+C; then if openstack finds device A's self cap A is contained in compatible cap of device 2/3/4, it can migrate device 1 to device 2,3,4. conversely, device 1's compatible cap is only A, so it is able to migrate device 2 to device 1, and it is not able to migrate device 3/4 to device 1. Thanks Yan > i woudl really prefer if there was just one mdev type that repsented the minimal allcatable unit and the > aggragaotr where used to create compostions of that. i.e instad of i915-GVTg_V5_2 beign half the device, > have 1 mdev type i915-GVTg and if the device support 8 of them then we can aggrate 4 of i915-GVTg > > if you want to have muplie mdev type to model the different amoutn of the resouce e.g. i915-GVTg_small i915-GVTg_large > that is totlaly fine too or even i915-GVTg_4 indcating it sis 4 of i915-GVTg > > failing that i would just expose an mdev type per composable resouce and allow us to compose them a the user level with > some other construct mudeling a attament to the device. e.g. create composed mdev or somethig that is an aggreateion of > multiple sub resouces each of which is an mdev. so kind of like how bond port work. we would create an mdev for each of > the sub resouces and then create a bond or aggrated mdev by reference the other mdevs by uuid then attach only the > aggreated mdev to the instance. > > the current aggrator syntax and sematic however make me rather uncofrotable when i think about orchestating vms on top > of it even to boot them let alone migrate them. > > > > So, we explicitly list out self/compatible attributes, and management > > tools only need to check if self attributes is contained compatible > > attributes. > > > > or do you mean only compatible list is enough, and the management tools > > need to find out self list by themselves? > > But I think provide a self list is easier for management tools. > > > > Thanks > > Yan > > >
