Re: [libvirt] cpuset / numa and qemu in TCG mode

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:27:34PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: >On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:14:58PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > >>Determining this by version might not be reliable, but more >>importantly working around bug in underlying software is something >>that shouldn't be done at all IMHO. Let the maintainers backport >>whatever needs to be done. > >I agree with you in an ideal world but there are times when we do need >to add work arounds in $project_x to work around issues in $project_y. > >>>Ther nova side will be pretty easy regardless. >>> >>>I'd say the best solution would be to back port the 'fix' but that seems like a >>>lot of effort given the number of distros and libvirt versions potentiall >>>involved. >>> >> >>If you want the fix to be distro-agnostic, there's nothing easier than >>back-porting the fix into our upstream maintenance branches. Those >>should make the life of distro maintainers easy (although it looks >>like not many distros use it). > >And this is part of the problem. If I understand correctly Ubuntu cloud-archive >is using libvirt 1.2.12 which is *NOT* a maintenance release so that leaves us >with doing an additional backport to 1.2.12 and getting the cloud-archive team >to take it[1] or Adding a hack to nova. And that's just Ubuntu It's hard to >say for sure that some vendor isn't running libvirt 1.2.12 also. > >>Having said that I'm not sure which commit(s) are those that need to >>be back-ported. Having known your libvirt version, it shouldn't be >>too hard looking for the differences and finding the right commit. >>When back-porting request is made on the list, it is usually acted >>upon. If you can't find the exact commit, let me know and I'll do my >>best to help. > >So a git bisect points at: >--- >commit a103bb105c0c189c3973311ff1826972b5bc6ad6 >Author: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; >Date: Tue Feb 10 15:59:57 2015 +0000 > > qemu: fix setting of VM CPU affinity with TCG >--- > >A small amount of reading implies to me that we'd be looking at backporting >a103bb105c0c189c3973311ff1826972b5bc6ad6 to any maintenance branch that contains >b07f3d821dfb11a118ee75ea275fd6ab737d9500. Which I think is 1.2.13 only, but I >could be wrong. > 1.2.13 has the commit already in the release and 1.2.12-maint has it as a first back-port right after release. The problem is that there was no maintenance release of 1.2.12 yet. Maybe they would use 1.2.12.1 if it existed. I Cc'd Guido as an upstream debian maintainer, maybe he'll have some insights. @Guido: would it help if we created a maintenance release from the v1.2.12-maint branch? Or is the only thing missing the fact that the launchpad bug is not moved to libvirt?