5:52 a.m.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:29:55PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 10:07:03 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:28:59PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:51:55AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 03:50:39PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:24:14 -0300
> > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 02:33:21PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > > > on old machine types CPU hotplug was uncondtionally
> > > > > > enabled since it was introduced, consuming IO ports
> > > > > > and providing AML regardles of whether it was actually
> > > > > > in use or not. Keep it so for 2.6 and older machines.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > New machine types will have an option to turn CPU
> > > > > > hotplug on if it's needed while by default it stays
> > > > > > disabled not consuming extra RAM/IO resources.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > What if people are using "-machine pc -smp
N,max_cpus=M"?
> > > > > Shouldn't we at least warning about missing CPU hotplug
support
> > > > > when using just "max_cpus" with no
"cpu-hotplug=on" with pc-2.7
> > > > > and newer?
> > > > Yep, I'll add it on next respin.
> > > > Would hard error better than warning?
> > >
> > > Most people don't need cpu hotplug, attempts
> > > to hotplug fail, should be enough.
> >
> > People who don't need CPU hotplug shouldn't be using the max_cpus
> > option.
>
> I agree.
>
> > I believe we should at least warn people (early, during
> > initialization) that their configuration don't make sense
> > anymore.
>
> I think we should try to keep old command line working
> if we can.
this patch won't break old command line for old machine types,
but for new machine type users would need to fix it
and be explicit if they want cpu-hotplug.
I don't think we should do that, unless users already had time to
update their scripts and libvirt had time to implement code
supporting the new method.
I believe libvirt (and people's scripts) use maxcpus only when
they want CPU hotplug, so making max_cpus > smp_cpus enable CPU
hotplug implicitly would probably solve the compatibility issue.
If we want to deprecate the use of maxcpus to enable CPU hotplug,
then we can make it print a warning for a few releases, so people
have time to update their code.
--
Eduardo
6:04 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [RFC 12/42] pc: initialize legacy hotplug only for 2.6 and older machine types
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 07:52:23 -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
I don't think we should do that, unless users already had time
to
update their scripts and libvirt had time to implement code
supporting the new method.
I believe libvirt (and people's scripts) use maxcpus only when
they want CPU hotplug, so making max_cpus > smp_cpus enable CPU
hotplug implicitly would probably solve the compatibility issue.
Libvirt uses maxcpus only if the configuration explicitly has less
active cpus than the maximum number. This option would be the best IMO.
If we want to deprecate the use of maxcpus to enable CPU hotplug,
then we can make it print a warning for a few releases, so people
have time to update their code.
At that point libvirt also needs a way to detect that the new argument
is supported by qemu, so we can start passing it on the command line
basically every time we now pass 'maxcpus'.
The warning will get most probably ignored by people using libvirt as
the stdout/err of qemu is not visible to them.
Peter
8:20 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [RFC 12/42] pc: initialize legacy hotplug only for 2.6 and older machine types
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:04:23 +0200
Peter Krempa <pkrempa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 07:52:23 -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> I don't think we should do that, unless users already had time to
> update their scripts and libvirt had time to implement code
> supporting the new method.
>
> I believe libvirt (and people's scripts) use maxcpus only when
> they want CPU hotplug, so making max_cpus > smp_cpus enable CPU
> hotplug implicitly would probably solve the compatibility issue.
Libvirt uses maxcpus only if the configuration explicitly has less
active cpus than the maximum number. This option would be the best IMO.
> If we want to deprecate the use of maxcpus to enable CPU hotplug,
> then we can make it print a warning for a few releases, so people
> have time to update their code.
At that point libvirt also needs a way to detect that the new argument
is supported by qemu, so we can start passing it on the command line
basically every time we now pass 'maxcpus'.
The warning will get most probably ignored by people using libvirt as
the stdout/err of qemu is not visible to them.
Ok, to make things less complicated
I'll drop machine.cpu-hotplug
and leave it always enabled as it used to be and as Michael suggested.
I'll drop following patches: 12, 13, 14, 20, 23 and respin series
Peter
8:27 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [RFC 12/42] pc: initialize legacy hotplug only for 2.6 and older machine types
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 15:20:51 +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:04:23 +0200
Peter Krempa <pkrempa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 07:52:23 -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > I don't think we should do that, unless users already had time to
> > update their scripts and libvirt had time to implement code
> > supporting the new method.
> >
> > I believe libvirt (and people's scripts) use maxcpus only when
> > they want CPU hotplug, so making max_cpus > smp_cpus enable CPU
> > hotplug implicitly would probably solve the compatibility issue.
>
> Libvirt uses maxcpus only if the configuration explicitly has less
> active cpus than the maximum number. This option would be the best IMO.
>
> > If we want to deprecate the use of maxcpus to enable CPU hotplug,
> > then we can make it print a warning for a few releases, so people
> > have time to update their code.
>
> At that point libvirt also needs a way to detect that the new argument
> is supported by qemu, so we can start passing it on the command line
> basically every time we now pass 'maxcpus'.
>
> The warning will get most probably ignored by people using libvirt as
> the stdout/err of qemu is not visible to them.
Ok, to make things less complicated I'll drop machine.cpu-hotplug
and leave it always enabled as it used to be and as Michael suggested.
I'll drop following patches: 12, 13, 14, 20, 23 and respin series
I actually don't mind disabling it. But I'd be glad if it was based on
the max_cpus value as Eduardo suggested.
Peter
9:30 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] [RFC 12/42] pc: initialize legacy hotplug only for 2.6 and older machine types
On Thu, 12 May 2016 15:27:04 +0200
Peter Krempa <pkrempa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 15:20:51 +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:04:23 +0200
> Peter Krempa <pkrempa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 07:52:23 -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > I don't think we should do that, unless users already had time to
> > > update their scripts and libvirt had time to implement code
> > > supporting the new method.
> > >
> > > I believe libvirt (and people's scripts) use maxcpus only when
> > > they want CPU hotplug, so making max_cpus > smp_cpus enable CPU
> > > hotplug implicitly would probably solve the compatibility issue.
> >
> > Libvirt uses maxcpus only if the configuration explicitly has less
> > active cpus than the maximum number. This option would be the best IMO.
> >
> > > If we want to deprecate the use of maxcpus to enable CPU hotplug,
> > > then we can make it print a warning for a few releases, so people
> > > have time to update their code.
> >
> > At that point libvirt also needs a way to detect that the new argument
> > is supported by qemu, so we can start passing it on the command line
> > basically every time we now pass 'maxcpus'.
> >
> > The warning will get most probably ignored by people using libvirt as
> > the stdout/err of qemu is not visible to them.
> Ok, to make things less complicated I'll drop machine.cpu-hotplug
> and leave it always enabled as it used to be and as Michael suggested.
>
> I'll drop following patches: 12, 13, 14, 20, 23 and respin series
I actually don't mind disabling it. But I'd be glad if it was based on
the max_cpus value as Eduardo suggested.
I've already dropped it, and
simplifies series quite a bit.
So lets continue without disabling for now.
Later we can consider disabling it if we agree on conditions when it should happen.
smp_cpus < max_cpus is not a good enough I think:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:50:39 +0200
Igor Mammedov <imammedo(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:24:14 -0300
> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost(a)redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Should max_cpus > smp_cpus automatically set
> > cpu-hotplug=on?
> I'd prefer dumb explicit feature enablement,
> as it doesn't put any assumptions on other options and
> QEMU + mgmt don't have to maintain logic for implicit
> rules that might enable it.
>
> and if I didn't manage to push 'device_add x86cpu' in 2.7 time frame,
> guess work gets a bit confusing with current cpu-add semantic,
> consider current:
>
> SRC-QEMU -smp 1,maxcpus=2
> cpu-add 1
> DST-QEMU -smp 2,maxcpus=2
>
> vs would be device_add:
>
> SRC-QEMU -smp 1,maxcpus=2
> device_add cpu
> DST-QEMU -smp 1,maxcpus=2 -device cpu
>
> so instead of qemu/users guessing, I suggest to make it explictly
> enabled to get feature (which is mostly optional) or
> cleanly fail qemu start if confusing options are specified
> with a clear error message.
3108
days inactive
3108
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Eduardo Habkost -
Igor Mammedov -
Peter Krempa