On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 04:51:23PM +0100, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
> On 02.02.2018 16:22, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 16:08:25 +0100
> > Viktor Mihajlovski <mihaj...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>>> A disabled guest CPU is represented as halted in the QEMU object model
> >>>> and can therefore be identified by the QMP query-cpus command.
> >>>>
> >>>> The initial patch proposal to expose this via virsh vcpuinfo was not
> >>>> considered to be desirable because there was a concern that legacy
> >>>> management software might be confused seeing halted vcpus. Therefore the
> >>>> state information was added to the cpu domain statistics.
> >>>>
> >>>> One issue we're facing is that the semantics of "halted" are different
> >>>> between s390 and at least x86. The question might be whether they are
> >>>> different enough to grant a specific "disabled" indicator.  
> >>>
> >>> From your description, it looks like they are completely
> >>> different.  On x86, a CPU that is online and in use can be moved
> >>> between halted and non-halted state many times a second.
> >>>
> >>> If that's the case, we can probably fix this without breaking
> >>> existing code: explicitly documenting the semantics of
> >>> "vcpu.<n>.halted" at virConnectGetAllDomainStats() to mean "not
> >>> online" (i.e. the s390 semantics, not the x86 one), and making
> >>> qemuMonitorGetCpuHalted() s390-specific.
> >>>
> >>> Possibly a better long-term solution is to deprecate
> >>> "vcpu.<n>.halted" and make "vcpu.<n>.state" work correctly on  
> >>> s390>  
> >> As it seems that nobody was ever *really* interested in x86.halted, one
> >> could also return 0 unconditionally there (and for other
> >> expensive-to-query arches)?
> > 
> > The most important question I have is: does this solution satisfy the
> > needs of upper management? That is, if we implement the solution suggested
> > by Eduardo than the feature of automatically hotplugging more CPUs
> > will only work for s390. Is this OK?
> > 
> > If yes, then I think this is the best solution. And the next question
> > would be: Viktor, can you change this in libvirt while we fix query-cpus
> > in QEMU?
> > 
> The latest proposal was to use a flag for query-cpus (like full-state)
> which would control the set of properties queried and reported. If this
> is the way we decide to go, I can make the necessary changes in libvirt.

Regardless of whether we add that flag to query-cpus or not, we still have
the general problem of solving the cross-architecture semantics to be
more sane.

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 :|

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

Reply via email to