Re: [libvirt] Proposal PCI/PCIe device placement on PAPR guests

Quoting Laine Stump (2017-01-12 08:52:10) > On 01/12/2017 05:31 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: >> On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 10:46 +1100, David Gibson wrote: >>>>> * To allow for hotplugged devices, libvirt should also add a number >>>>> of additional, empty vPHBs (the PAPR spec allows for hotplug of >>>>> PHBs, but this is not yet implemented in qemu). >>>> >>>> "A number" here will have to mean "one", same number of >>>> empty PCIe Root Ports libvirt will add to a newly-defined >>>> q35 guest. >>> >>> Umm.. why? >> >> Because some applications using libvirt would inevitably >> start relying on the fact that such spare PHBs are >> available, locking us into providing at least the same >> number forever. In other words, increasing the amount at >> a later time is always possible, but decreasing it isn't. >> We did the same when we started automatically adding PCIe >> Root Ports to q35 machines. >> >> The rationale is that having a single spare hotpluggable >> slot is extremely convenient for basic usage, eg. a simple >> guest created by someone who's not necessarily very >> familiar with virtualization; on the other hand, if you >> are actually deploying in production you ought to conduct >> proper capacity planning and figure out in advance how >> many devices you're likely to need to hotplug throughout >> the guest's life. > > And of course the reason we don't want to add "too many" extra > controllers by default is so that we don't end up with *all* guests > burdened with extra hardware they don't need or want. The libguestfs > appliance is one example of a libvirt consumer that definitely doesn't > want extra baggage in its guests - guest startup time is very important > to libguestfs, so any addition to the hardware list is looked upon with > disappointment. > >> >> Of course this all will be moot once we can hotplug PHBs :) > > Will the guest OSes handle that properly? I remember being told that I believe on pseries we *do* scan for devices on the PHB as part of bringing the PHB online in the hotplug path. But I'm not sure that matters (see below). > Linux, for example, doesn't scan the new bus for devices when a new > controller is added, making it pointless to hotplug a PCI controller (as > usual, it could be that I'm remembering incorrectly...) > Wouldn't that only be an issue if we hotplugged a PHB that already had PCI devices on the bus?

That only seems possible if we had a way to signal phb hotplug *after* we've hotplugged some PCI devices on the bus, which means we'd need some interface to trigger hotplug beyond the standard 'device_add' calls, e.g.: device_add spapr-pci-host-bridge,hotplug-deferred=true,id=phb2,index=2 device_add virtio-net-pci,bus=phb2.0,...,hotplug-deferred=true device_signal_hotplug phb2 That's actually akin to how it's normally done on pHyp (not only for PHB hotplug, but for PCI hotplug in general, which is why this could be reasonably expected to work on pseries guests), but it seems quite a bit different from how we'd normally handle this on kvm, which I think would be something more like: device_add spapr-pci-host-bridge,id=phb2,index=2 <wait for hotplug completion event> device_add virtio-net-pci,bus=phb2.0,... In which case it doesn't really matter if the guest scans the bus at hotplug time or not. Is there some other scenario where this might arise?