On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 10:44:22 -0400, Collin Walling wrote: > Hi > > I have noticed something that may be misconstrued regarding the libvirt domain xml format > for defining a cpu model. There seems to be a misalignment where the libvirt documentation > states something that is not supported, but libvirt itself gives no clear indication of > such. This is regarding the cpu mode "host-model" and providing a cpu model name between > the <model> tags. > > >From the libvirt docs under header "CPU model and topology" paragraph "cpu" subparagraph > "host-model", the following rule is defined (bolded or between asterisks): > > "... The match attribute can't be used in this mode. *Specifying CPU model is not supported* > either, but model's fallback attribute may still be used. ..." > > https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#elementsCPU > > The above rule reads as "if mode is 'host-model' (and the architecture is not PowerPC) then > specifying a model name should not be allowed". However, this is not the observed behavior. > For example, I can define and start a guest with the following xml snippet without any issues: > > <cpu mode='host-model'> > <model>cpu-name</model> > </cpu> > > Which seems to contradict what the documentation states. It's not forbidden for compatibility reasons. Old libvirt used to fill in the <model>...</model> in <cpu mode='host-model'></cpu> during migration and save/restore so that the destination would know the actual CPU the domain was started with. We changed this so that host-model automatically turns into mode='custom' CPU when a domain starts, but we still need to support parsing the XML whare mode='host-model' and <model></model> are used at the same time. When a domain is migrated, libvirt will turn the incoming host-model into custom mode. Otherwise the specified model will just be ignored. Jirka

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 13:36:55 +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > > > On 05/09/2018 12:41 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote: >> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 10:44:22 -0400, Collin Walling wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> I have noticed something that may be misconstrued regarding the libvirt domain xml format >>> for defining a cpu model. There seems to be a misalignment where the libvirt documentation >>> states something that is not supported, but libvirt itself gives no clear indication of >>> such. This is regarding the cpu mode "host-model" and providing a cpu model name between >>> the <model> tags. >>> >>> >From the libvirt docs under header "CPU model and topology" paragraph "cpu" subparagraph >>> "host-model", the following rule is defined (bolded or between asterisks): >>> >>> "... The match attribute can't be used in this mode. *Specifying CPU model is not supported* >>> either, but model's fallback attribute may still be used. ..." >>> >>> https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#elementsCPU >>> >>> The above rule reads as "if mode is 'host-model' (and the architecture is not PowerPC) then >>> specifying a model name should not be allowed". However, this is not the observed behavior. >>> For example, I can define and start a guest with the following xml snippet without any issues: >>> >>> <cpu mode='host-model'> >>> <model>cpu-name</model> >>> </cpu> >>> >>> Which seems to contradict what the documentation states. >> >> It's not forbidden for compatibility reasons. Old libvirt used to fill >> in the <model>...</model> in <cpu mode='host-model'></cpu> during >> migration and save/restore so that the destination would know the actual >> CPU the domain was started with. We changed this so that host-model >> automatically turns into mode='custom' CPU when a domain starts, but we >> still need to support parsing the XML whare mode='host-model' and >> <model></model> are used at the same time. When a domain is migrated, >> libvirt will turn the incoming host-model into custom mode. Otherwise >> the specified model will just be ignored. >> >> Jirka >> > > Thank you very much for your explanation. AFAIU we already differentiate between: > a) 'incoming migration' (~ transient domain definition) --> convert to 'custom' > b) 'otherwise' (~ persistent domain definition) --> ignored. Right, but this differentiation is not done in the parser, so we still need to keep the code there. However, we should be able to do so in the appropriate PostParse function. > Thus b') persistent domain definition --> error or warn would > not break the scenario you described (again AFAIU). I guess we could fail when a new domain is defined, but we must be extra careful to not break backward compatibility. Alternatively we could just drop the model name from CPU definition when a new domain is defined (and log a warning) as suggested by Boris in another email. This approach would be probably a bit better wrt backward compatibility since everything would keep working.

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 10:44:22AM -0400, Collin Walling wrote: > Hi > > I have noticed something that may be misconstrued regarding the libvirt domain xml format > for defining a cpu model. There seems to be a misalignment where the libvirt documentation > states something that is not supported, but libvirt itself gives no clear indication of > such. This is regarding the cpu mode "host-model" and providing a cpu model name between > the <model> tags. > > >From the libvirt docs under header "CPU model and topology" paragraph "cpu" subparagraph > "host-model", the following rule is defined (bolded or between asterisks): > > "... The match attribute can't be used in this mode. *Specifying CPU model is not supported* > either, but model's fallback attribute may still be used. ..." > > https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#elementsCPU > > The above rule reads as "if mode is 'host-model' (and the architecture is not PowerPC) then > specifying a model name should not be allowed". However, this is not the observed behavior. > For example, I can define and start a guest with the following xml snippet without any issues: > > <cpu mode='host-model'> > <model>cpu-name</model> > </cpu> After starting the guest, you still see the same as above when you do `virsh dumpxml $GUEST`? Also does the "cpu-name" of your choice really shows up when check the QEMU command-line for the guest?