[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] RFC: Creating mediated devices with libvirt



[...]
> >> So, just for clarification of the concept, the device with ^this UUID will have
> >> had to be defined by the nodedev API by the time we start to edit the domain
> >> XML in this manner in which case the only thing the autocreate=yes would do is
> >> to actually create the mdev according to the nodedev config, right? Continuing
> >> with that thought, if UUID doesn't refer to any of the inactive configs it will
> >> be an error I suppose? What about the fact that only one vgpu type can live on
> >> the GPU? even if you can successfully identify a device using the UUID in this
> >> way, you'll still face the problem, that other types might be currently
> >> occupying the GPU and need to be torn down first, will this be automated as
> >> well in what you suggest? I assume not.
> >
> > Technically we shouldn't need the node device to exist at the time we
> > define the XML - only at the time we start the guest, does the node
> > device have to exist. eg same way you list a virtual network as the
> > source of a guest NIC, but that virtual network doesn't have to actually
> > have been defined & started until the guest starts.
> >
> > If there are constraints that a pGPU can only support a certain combination
> > of vGPUs at any single point in time, doesn't the kernel already  enforce
> > that when you try to create the vGPU in sysfs. IOW, we merely need to try
> > to create the vGPU, and if the kernel mdev driver doesn't allow you to mix
> > that with the other vGPUs that already exist, then we'd just report an
> > error from virNodeDeviceCreate, and that'd get propagated back as the
> > error for the virDomainCreate call.
> >
> >>
> >>>     </source>
> >>>     </hostdev>
> >>>   </devices>
> >>>
> >>> In the QEMU driver, then the only change required is
> >>>
> >>>    if (def->autocreate)
> >>>        virNodeDeviceCreate(dev)
> >>
> >> Aha, so if a device gets torn down on shutdown, we won't face the problem with
> >> some other devices being active, all of them will have to be in the inactive
> >> state because they got torn down during the last shutdown - that would work.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the relationship with other active devices is relevant
> > here. The virNodeDevicePtr we're accesing here is a single vGPU - if other
> > running guests have further vGPUs on the same pGPU, that's not really
> > relevant. Each vGPU is created/deleted as required.
>
> I think he's talking about devices that were previously used by other
> domains that are no longer active. Since they're also automatically
> destroyed, they're not a problem.

Yes, that was exactly my point, anyhow, seems like I got a grasp of Dan's
proposal then, great.

Erik


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]