On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 03:01:38PM +0100, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 11/4/22 14:41, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 01:03:52PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 16:43:00 +0600, Oleg Vasilev wrote:
> > > Hotplugging PCI devices on pc-i440fx machines is supported without
> > > additional configuration. On q35, pcie-to-pci-bridge needs to be added
> > > prior to the machine startup in order to support hotplug [1].
> > >
> > > The idea is to support the same workflow for creating VMs in q35, as was
> > > in pc. Namely, do not require additional configuration when hotplugging
> > > is needed. Otherwise, all libvirt clients need to be updated which there
> > > are a lot and they are maintained by different parties.
> > >
> > > Instead, a pcie-to-pci-bridge better be created by default, so that PCI
> > > slots are readily available. Might be a good idea to make it configurable
> > > in the future.
> The goal of q35 is to provide a PCI-e topology though, and we want
> devices to be exposed as PCI-e endpoints, with no legacy PCI usage
> by default.
>
> When a guest XML is provided for cold boot, libvirt will ensure
> that all devices are placed onto the PCI-e bus via pcie-root-ports
>
> With this proposal hotplugging a device will cause it to be placed
> on a PCI bus instead, if there are no spare pcie-root-port available.
>
> This behavioural difference between cold plug and hot plug is very
> undesirable IMHO, as it is counter to our goal of avoiding legacy
> PCI on PCI-e machines.
that is an interesting point which I have initially missed. I have
checked our investigation log and found that we have
potentially made a mistake with making compatibility
check with e1000 device instead of virtio, which is
our default. This could be the reason.
>
> If a mgmt app wants to enable this mis-matched behaviour they can
> add a pcie-to-pci-bridge when initially cold booting the VM, but
> we shouldn't add one by default IMHO. We really recommend that
> apps just pre-populate 10-30 pcie-root-port devices when creating
> a VM, so there is plenty of space for hotplugging devices later.
this potentially an option, but I think that these port should be
created automatically by libvirt to avoid major client rewrites.
Will the option to keep the amount of spare ports in /etc/libvirt/qemu.conf
work for you?
Our general view is that qemu.conf should not cause changes that
affect the guest ABI.
For an given input XML, we want applications to have a predictable
guest ABI created. Influencing the guest ABI from qemu.conf settings
would mean applications have uncertain results for a given XML config,
so what works on one host may break on another host.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|