[libvirt] [PATCH v4 2/5] libxl: add support for PVH
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
marmarek at invisiblethingslab.com
Fri Oct 19 15:10:30 UTC 2018
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 03:59:03PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 08:53:15AM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> > On 10/19/18 8:14 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 08:06:18AM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> > > > On 10/19/18 3:11 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:08:34AM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> > > > > > On 10/17/18 12:59 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 08:46:19AM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> > > > > > > > I had some couch time at the start of the weekend and was finally able to
> > > > > > > > try using this series with virt-install. As it turns out, reporting
> > > > > > > > duplicate <guest> blocks for <os_type> 'xen' is not quite right. Instead we
> > > > > > > > will want to report the additional <machine> under the existing 'xen'
> > > > > > > > <guest> blocks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is that virt-install limitation? In that case, IMO virt-install should
> > > > > > > be fixed, instead of changing capabilities xml to match its limitations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps it is a virt-install limitation, but my suggestion was based more on
> > > > > > how the qemu driver reports the different machines
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <guest>
> > > > > > <os_type>hvm</os_type>
> > > > > > <arch name='x86_64'>
> > > > > > <wordsize>64</wordsize>
> > > > > > <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64</emulator>
> > > > > > <machine maxCpus='255'>pc-i440fx-3.0</machine>
> > > > > > <machine maxCpus='288'>pc-q35-3.0</machine>
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > </arch>
> > > > > > </guest>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Compare that with reporting PV and PVH in different <guest> blocks, where
> > > > > > the <os_type> and <arch> are the same. It seems confusing from a consumers
> > > > > > POV
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <guest>
> > > > > > <os_type>xen</os_type>
> > > > > > <arch name='x86_64'>
> > > > > > <wordsize>64</wordsize>
> > > > > > <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64</emulator>
> > > > > > <machine>xenpv</machine>
> > > > > > </arch>
> > > > > > </guest>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <guest>
> > > > > > <os_type>xen</os_type>
> > > > > > <arch name='x86_64'>
> > > > > > <wordsize>64</wordsize>
> > > > > > <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64</emulator>
> > > > > > <machine>xenpvh</machine>
> > > > > > </arch>
> > > > > > </guest>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How should a consumer interpret that? Is the machine for os_type=xen,
> > > > > > arch=x86_64 a xenpv or a xenpvh?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, you are right - any pair of (os_type, arch) should be unique
> > > > > in the capabilities XML. So all machines should be reported in the
> > > > > same block.
> > > >
> > > > Our difficulty with that is xenpv and xenpvh machines have different
> > > > features. Marek pointed out that the qemu driver reports the "feature"
> > > > maxCpus as an attribute on the machine element, but we're hesitant to keep
> > > > adding attributes for each feature that is unique to a machine.
> > > >
> > > > Another option we discussed was reporting a superset of all features so that
> > > > e.g. (xen, x86_64) block would contain features supported by both PV and PVH
> > > > and then rejecting unsupported features when parsing domXML or starting the
> > > > VM. This option is rather distasteful.
> > > >
> > > > And we also have the option of adding VIR_DOMAIN_OSTYPE_XENPVH, which I've
> > > > shied away from but may be a better way to go in the end. Do you have any
> > > > suggestions we may have overlooked?
> > >
> > > Oooh, it looks like i've been mis-understanding PVH in all my previous
> > > reviews.
> > >
> > > I thought it was simply a "normal" Xen paravirtualized guest kernel. ie
> > > any 'pv' guest is also a valid 'pvh' guest. Looking at the docs
> > >
> > > https://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Project_Software_Overview#Guest_Types
> > >
> > > It appears I was wrong. It says a pvh guest kernel relies on hardware
> > > virt extensions for part of its work and paravirt for other parts. So
> > > really is a hybrid between pv and hvm.
> >
> > Right. The Xen wiki also has a good writeup about the various guest types
> >
> > https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Understanding_the_Virtualization_Spectrum
> >
> > > With that in mind, we should indeed have a distinct OS type constant
> > > to express this.
> >
> > There have been some long threads in the various versions of this series
> > with a lot of waffling :-). I made a few attempts at summarizing what we
> > learned about PV vs PVH but could never build a strong case (at least in my
> > own head) for either of the two modeling approaches
> >
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-October/msg00214.html
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-October/msg00891.html
>
> It has a bad name, but essentially you should consider "ostype" to
> refer to the Hypervisor <-> Guest hardware ABI.
Oh, if that's the case, then indeed separate ostype makes sense. Maybe
it worth expanding ostype description somewhere in documentation?
> Based on what I read, and your 2 links here, PV is clearly a different
> hardware ABI from PVH. Guest kernels needs different modifications for
> PV vs PVH.
>
> Sorry I didn't spot this sooner, and let this go off down the blind
> alley of switching based on machine type, when we should have used
> the ostype :-(
What machine type should it use then? Still xenpvh, but make all the
decisions based on ostype?
--
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20181019/4a20d93a/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list