5:26 p.m.
Hi All,
I vaguely recall a discussion about $subject, but can't find it now. Perhaps
buried in another thread. The topic has been raised internally again, and I'd
like to gauge the community's interest in automatically adding the necessary
devices/config when user has specified vcpus > 255.
The comparison for prior art is a bit of a stretch, but we e.g. add <audio
type='spice'/> when spice graphics is configured. I know libvirt has generally
tried to avoid policy decisions, but it's not clear to me where we stand with
cases such as this, where every x86 VM with > 255 vcpus needs a similarly
configured iommu.
Regards,
Jim
2:41 a.m.
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 16:26:18 -0600, Jim Fehlig via Devel wrote:
Hi All,
I vaguely recall a discussion about $subject, but can't find it now. Perhaps
buried in another thread. The topic has been raised internally again, and
I'd like to gauge the community's interest in automatically adding the
necessary devices/config when user has specified vcpus > 255.
The comparison for prior art is a bit of a stretch, but we e.g. add
<audio
type='spice'/> when spice graphics is configured.
The thing about 'audio' "device" is that it's purely just backend
with
no impact on the VM ABI. In fact 'audio' and 'graphics' IMO should not
have been put under <devices> for that reason.
I know libvirt has
generally tried to avoid policy decisions, but it's not clear to me where we
stand with cases such as this, where every x86 VM with > 255 vcpus needs a
similarly configured iommu.
Adding the IOMMU would change the guest ABI, so libvirt can't auto-add
it, unless a VM with > 255 cpus would not start at all.
In case of IOMMU the absence of the element means that the user doesn't
want an IOMMU, rather than that it was not configured, so you'd have no
way to express a configuration where > 255 cpus are declared but no
IOMMU was used to start it. Migrating such a config would then break.
3:05 a.m.
On 5/29/24 09:41, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 16:26:18 -0600, Jim Fehlig via Devel wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I vaguely recall a discussion about $subject, but can't find it now. Perhaps
> buried in another thread. The topic has been raised internally again, and
> I'd like to gauge the community's interest in automatically adding the
> necessary devices/config when user has specified vcpus > 255.
> The comparison for prior art is a bit of a stretch, but we e.g. add <audio
> type='spice'/> when spice graphics is configured.
The thing about 'audio' "device" is that it's purely just backend
with
no impact on the VM ABI. In fact 'audio' and 'graphics' IMO should not
have been put under <devices> for that reason.
> I know libvirt has
> generally tried to avoid policy decisions, but it's not clear to me where we
> stand with cases such as this, where every x86 VM with > 255 vcpus needs a
> similarly configured iommu.
Adding the IOMMU would change the guest ABI, so libvirt can't auto-add
it, unless a VM with > 255 cpus would not start at all.
In case of IOMMU the absence of the element means that the user doesn't
want an IOMMU, rather than that it was not configured, so you'd have no
way to express a configuration where > 255 cpus are declared but no
IOMMU was used to start it. Migrating such a config would then break.
Right, that's what I had on mind but didn't write it. Sorry. We have
VIR_DOMAIN_DEF_PARSE_ABI_UPDATE flag that is meant for this purpose,
isn't it?
Michal
12:25 p.m.
On 5/29/24 1:41 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 16:26:18 -0600, Jim Fehlig via Devel wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I vaguely recall a discussion about $subject, but can't find it now. Perhaps
> buried in another thread. The topic has been raised internally again, and
> I'd like to gauge the community's interest in automatically adding the
> necessary devices/config when user has specified vcpus > 255.
> The comparison for prior art is a bit of a stretch, but we e.g. add <audio
> type='spice'/> when spice graphics is configured.
The thing about 'audio' "device" is that it's purely just backend
with
no impact on the VM ABI. In fact 'audio' and 'graphics' IMO should not
have been put under <devices> for that reason.
> I know libvirt has
> generally tried to avoid policy decisions, but it's not clear to me where we
> stand with cases such as this, where every x86 VM with > 255 vcpus needs a
> similarly configured iommu.
Adding the IOMMU would change the guest ABI, so libvirt can't auto-add
it, unless a VM with > 255 cpus would not start at all.
libvirt already prevents defining a VM with > 255 vcpus, but without a properly
configured iommu
error: unsupported configuration: more than 255 vCPUs require extended interrupt
mode enabled on the iommu device
It's possible to start such a VM using qemu directly, although the guest (linux
at least) does not make much progress
[ 0.095107][ T0] [Firmware Bug]: CPU 0: APIC ID mismatch. CPUID: 0x0001
APIC: 0x0000
[ 0.003921][ T0] [Firmware Bug]: CPU 2: APIC ID mismatch. CPUID: 0x0003
APIC: 0x0002
[ 0.003921][ T0] [Firmware Bug]: CPU 4: APIC ID mismatch. CPUID: 0x0005
APIC: 0x0004
[ 0.003921][ T0] [Firmware Bug]: CPU 6: APIC ID mismatch. CPUID: 0x0007
APIC: 0x0006
...
[ 0.003921][ T0] [Firmware Bug]: CPU 250: APIC ID mismatch. CPUID: 0x00fb
APIC: 0x00fa
[ 0.003921][ T0] [Firmware Bug]: CPU 252: APIC ID mismatch. CPUID: 0x00fd
APIC: 0x00fc
[ 0.003921][ T0] [Firmware Bug]: CPU 254: APIC ID mismatch. CPUID: 0x00ff
APIC: 0x00fe
Regards,
Jim
1:44 p.m.
On Tuesday, May 28 2024, Jim Fehlig via Devel wrote:
Hi All,
I vaguely recall a discussion about $subject, but can't find it
now. Perhaps buried in another thread. The topic has been raised
internally again, and I'd like to gauge the community's interest in
automatically adding the necessary devices/config when user has
specified vcpus > 255.
The comparison for prior art is a bit of a stretch, but we e.g. add
<audio type='spice'/> when spice graphics is configured. I know
libvirt has generally tried to avoid policy decisions, but it's not
clear to me where we stand with cases such as this, where every x86 VM
with > 255 vcpus needs a similarly configured iommu.
My two cents here: this is something I would certainly appreciate as a
downstream maintainer of QEMU/libvirt. In fact, I spent part of last
year figuring out and documenting the necessary bits that need to be put
together in order to use more than 288 vCPUs. One of the results of
this effort (with help from David Woodhouse) was:
https://ubuntu.com/server/docs/create-qemu-vms-with-up-to-1024-vcpus
I still have to write the equivalent guide for libvirt, FWIW.
Cheers,
--
Sergio
GPG key ID: E92F D0B3 6B14 F1F4 D8E0 EB2F 106D A1C8 C3CB BF14
7:45 a.m.
On Wed, 29 May 2024 14:44:52 -0400
Sergio Durigan Junior <sergio.durigan(a)canonical.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, May 28 2024, Jim Fehlig via Devel wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I vaguely recall a discussion about $subject, but can't find it
> now. Perhaps buried in another thread. The topic has been raised
> internally again, and I'd like to gauge the community's interest in
> automatically adding the necessary devices/config when user has
> specified vcpus > 255.
>
> The comparison for prior art is a bit of a stretch, but we e.g. add
> <audio type='spice'/> when spice graphics is configured. I know
> libvirt has generally tried to avoid policy decisions, but it's not
> clear to me where we stand with cases such as this, where every x86 VM
> with > 255 vcpus needs a similarly configured iommu.
My two cents here: this is something I would certainly appreciate as a
downstream maintainer of QEMU/libvirt. In fact, I spent part of last
year figuring out and documenting the necessary bits that need to be put
together in order to use more than 288 vCPUs. One of the results of
this effort (with help from David Woodhouse) was:
https://ubuntu.com/server/docs/create-qemu-vms-with-up-to-1024-vcpus
I still have to write the equivalent guide for libvirt, FWIW.
Usability of huge VMs (incl. large amount of vCPUs) heavily depends
on used guest OS. What would work for one might not work for other.
For general purpose OS adding IOMMU is typically necessary to make
vCPUs over 254 usable, for Windows adjusting -smp might make a difference.
On the other hand, special built guest with tailored QEMU config might
work without IOMMU just fine (David was the one who patched KVM to that
effect if I recall correctly).
What I'm saying is that workload specific customization (guest OS)
is not handled at libvirt layer.
It's typically upper layers which know what guest OS would be
and it's up to them to customize config to make sure that workload
would be able to use VM as intended.
PS:
that said, having some guide in libvirt docs for a generic OS
(even just a linux) could be useful for folks working directly
with libvirt.
Cheers,
10:02 a.m.
On 5/30/24 6:45 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2024 14:44:52 -0400
Sergio Durigan Junior <sergio.durigan(a)canonical.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 28 2024, Jim Fehlig via Devel wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I vaguely recall a discussion about $subject, but can't find it
>> now. Perhaps buried in another thread. The topic has been raised
>> internally again, and I'd like to gauge the community's interest in
>> automatically adding the necessary devices/config when user has
>> specified vcpus > 255.
>>
>> The comparison for prior art is a bit of a stretch, but we e.g. add
>> <audio type='spice'/> when spice graphics is configured. I know
>> libvirt has generally tried to avoid policy decisions, but it's not
>> clear to me where we stand with cases such as this, where every x86 VM
>> with > 255 vcpus needs a similarly configured iommu.
>
> My two cents here: this is something I would certainly appreciate as a
> downstream maintainer of QEMU/libvirt. In fact, I spent part of last
> year figuring out and documenting the necessary bits that need to be put
> together in order to use more than 288 vCPUs. One of the results of
> this effort (with help from David Woodhouse) was:
>
> https://ubuntu.com/server/docs/create-qemu-vms-with-up-to-1024-vcpus
>
> I still have to write the equivalent guide for libvirt, FWIW.
FYI, SLES docs also mention special configuration needed for > 255 vcpus. See
note accompanying '15.4.1 Configuring the number of CPUs'
https://documentation.suse.com/sles/15-SP5/html/SLES-all/cha-libvirt-conf...
Usability of huge VMs (incl. large amount of vCPUs) heavily depends
on used guest OS. What would work for one might not work for other.
For general purpose OS adding IOMMU is typically necessary to make
vCPUs over 254 usable, for Windows adjusting -smp might make a difference.
On the other hand, special built guest with tailored QEMU config might
work without IOMMU just fine (David was the one who patched KVM to that
effect if I recall correctly).
What I'm saying is that workload specific customization (guest OS)
is not handled at libvirt layer.
It's typically upper layers which know what guest OS would be
and it's up to them to customize config to make sure that workload
would be able to use VM as intended.
Yes, good point. And I'm now recalling the same reasoning for nacking the
proposal the last time it was discussed. Damn, wish I could find that old thread...
Regards,
Jim
noon
On Thu, 2024-05-30 at 14:45 +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
Usability of huge VMs (incl. large amount of vCPUs) heavily depends
on used guest OS. What would work for one might not work for other.
For general purpose OS adding IOMMU is typically necessary to make
vCPUs over 254 usable, for Windows adjusting -smp might make a
difference.
On the other hand, special built guest with tailored QEMU config
might
work without IOMMU just fine (David was the one who patched KVM to
that
effect if I recall correctly).
So, as far as I know, there is no way for any OS with any configuration
to bring up more than 255 vCPUs, without a vIOMMU.
IIUIC, it's a matter of number of bits available in the I/O APIC IRQ
destination register. Like, with only that available, and it being only
8 bit wide, it's just not doable.
In fact, even Linux is actually able to at least start... But it shows
the "[Firmware Bug]" lines and only has 255 online vCPUs, with no way
of bringing up the other ones (and I haven't stress tested a VM running
like that, so I don't know if it's also stable).
What I'm saying is that workload specific customization (guest
OS)
is not handled at libvirt layer.
FWIW, this seems more hardware than guest OS related to me...
It's typically upper layers which know what guest OS would be
and it's up to them to customize config to make sure that workload
would be able to use VM as intended.
Ok. But then why Libvirt does not let me define a VM with more than 255
vCPUs and no vIOMMU ?
I mean, basing on what you're saying, it seems that such should depend
(but, if yes, I'm not sure how....) on guest OS too... doesn't it?
Regards,
--
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D
http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Virtualization Software Engineer
SUSE Labs, SUSE https://www.suse.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<This happens because _I_ choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
5:16 a.m.
On 30/05/2024 18:00, Dario Faggioli via Devel wrote:
On Thu, 2024-05-30 at 14:45 +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> Usability of huge VMs (incl. large amount of vCPUs) heavily depends
> on used guest OS. What would work for one might not work for other.
> For general purpose OS adding IOMMU is typically necessary to make
> vCPUs over 254 usable, for Windows adjusting -smp might make a
> difference.
>
> On the other hand, special built guest with tailored QEMU config
> might
> work without IOMMU just fine (David was the one who patched KVM to
> that
> effect if I recall correctly).
>
So, as far as I know, there is no way for any OS with any configuration
to bring up more than 255 vCPUs, without a vIOMMU.
IIUIC, it's a matter of number of bits available in the I/O APIC IRQ
destination register. Like, with only that available, and it being only
8 bit wide, it's just not doable.
On VMs, there's alternatively a KVM PV op to bump the limit to 32k vCPUs i.e.
KVM_FEATURE_MSI_EXT_DEST_ID
(on qemu it's cpu feature name +kvm-msi-ext-dest-id)
Which uses the other 24-bits for that destination register (which on hardware
would cross a page boundary in IOAPIC entry IIUC) without needing IOMMU
interrupt remapping. But you need the guest to understand that feature (which is
there since Linux v5.15 or around that timeframe). I think this is what Igor is
referring to.
Joao
6:24 a.m.
On Fri, 2024-05-31 at 11:16 +0100, Joao Martins wrote:
On 30/05/2024 18:00, Dario Faggioli via Devel wrote:
>
> IIUIC, it's a matter of number of bits available in the I/O APIC
> IRQ
> destination register. Like, with only that available, and it being
> only
> 8 bit wide, it's just not doable.
>
On VMs, there's alternatively a KVM PV op to bump the limit to 32k
vCPUs i.e.
KVM_FEATURE_MSI_EXT_DEST_ID
(on qemu it's cpu feature name +kvm-msi-ext-dest-id)
Which uses the other 24-bits for that destination register (which on
hardware
would cross a page boundary in IOAPIC entry IIUC) without needing
IOMMU
interrupt remapping. But you need the guest to understand that
feature (which is
there since Linux v5.15 or around that timeframe). I think this is
what Igor is
referring to.
Ok, and thanks for the explanation. :-)
Now, it may very well be me, but this confuses me even more... :-O
So, right now, if you try to create a VM with more than 255 vCPUs and
do not explicitly and manually add a vIOMMU to it, Libvirt does not let
you do that. In fact, as show in earlier messages, both `virsh edit`
and `virsh define` blocks you until you either reduce the vCPUs number
or add the device.
In fact, if I want a VM with 256 vCPUs and no vIOMMU, I just can't have
it. And I don't think that check is guest-OS (or guest-OS-kernel-
version) dependent so, even if the guest is a Linux with a > 5.15
kernel that understands that feature, and hence things could actually
work there, we force users to defin a vIOMMU.
I guess that what I do not understand is the coexistence of those
checks and the decision of not adding the device automatically (and
even less now that you told me that it's not even always strictly
necessary).
Basically, we don't want to create a vIOMMU automatically, because it
might be that things work without a vIOMMU, and users may not want the
vIOMMU. But if there's no vIOMMU in the xml, we don't even define the
VM and ask the users to go and put there a vIOMMU themselves? What am I
missing?
Thanks and Regards,
--
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D
http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Virtualization Software Engineer
SUSE Labs, SUSE https://www.suse.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<This happens because _I_ choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
209
days inactive
212
days old
9 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Dario Faggioli -
Igor Mammedov -
Jim Fehlig -
Joao Martins -
Michal Prívozník -
Peter Krempa -
Sergio Durigan Junior