On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 11:05 -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 3/24/20 11:00 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 09:27 -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > For the sake of completeness, I'll also mention that we can simply allow
<pmu/> to be
> > declared in the XML, handling the <pmu state='on'/> inside the
QEMU driver to not add the
> > bogus '.pmu' parameter for QEMU ppc64, forbid <pmu
state='off'/> to be declared, and
> > nothing else. No auto-generation of XML indicating that the guest will support
a PMU.
>
> Looking again at how other architectures, specifically x86 and ARM,
> handle this, the PMU is generally enabled by default without this
> fact being reflected in the domain XML; the user can then go ahead
> and specifically ask for it to be turned on or off, at which point
> libvirt will add the relevant bits to the QEMU command line.
>
> This is basically the second behavior you're describing above, and
> I think it would be perfectly fine if that's the one we would adopt
> for ppc64.
I guess I'll roll with this one then. I will allow <pmu state='on'/> to
be
declared in the XML without breaking QEMU. For <pmu state='off'/> I'll
throw an CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED error mentioning that PMU can't be turned off
for ppc64.
Sounds good.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization