On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 09:37:55PM +1000, Alexey G wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:21:54 +0000
> Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >The subject line says to expect 30 patches, but you've only sent 18 to
> >the list here. I eventually figured out that the first 12 patches were
> >in Xen code and so not sent to qemu-devel.
> >
> >For future if you have changes that affect multiple completely separate
> >projects, send them as separate series. ie just send PATCH 00/18 to
> >QEMU devel so it doesn't look like a bunch of patches have gone
> >missing.
> 
> OK, we'll do for next versions.
> 
> >> A new domain config option was implemented: device_model_machine.
> >> It's a string which has following possible values:
> >> - "i440" -- i440 emulation (default)
> >> - "q35"  -- emulate a Q35 machine. By default, the storage interface
> >> is AHCI.  
> >
> >Presumably this is mapping to the QEMU -machine arg, so it feels
> >desirable to keep the same naming scheme. ie allow any of the
> >versioned machine names that QEMU uses. eg any of "pc-q35-2.x"
> >versioned types, or 'q35' as an alias for latest, and use
> >"pc-i440fx-2.x" versioned types of 'pc' as an alias for latest, rather
> >than 'i440' which is needlessly divering from the QEMU machine type.
> 
> Yes, it is translated into the '-machine' argument.
> 
> A direct mapping between the Xen device_model_machine option and QEMU
> '-machine' argument won't be accepted by Xen maintainers I guess.
> 
> The main problem with this approach is a requirement to have a match
> between Xen/libxl and QEMU versions. If, for example,
> device_model_machine tells something like "pc-q35-2.11" and later we
> downgrade QEMU to some older version we'll likely have a problem
> without changing anything in the domain config. So I guess the "use the
> latest available" approach for machine selection (pc, q35, etc) is the
> only possible option. Perhaps having the way to specify the exact QEMU
> machine name and version in a separate domain config parameter (for
> advanced use) might be feasible.

At least with plain QEMU or KVM, using the versioned machine type
names is important as that is what guarantees you a stable guest
machine ABI, independant of QEMU version.  If your deployment has
a mixture of QEMU versions on different hosts, then you very much
want to pick a versioned machine type to ensure compatibility for
live migration. With libvirt we accept the short "pc" or "q35"
names on input, but expand them to the fully versioned name
when saving the config file, so no matter which QEMU version is
used each time the guest is launched, the ABI is always the same.

> 
> Also, parameter names do not speak for themselves I'm afraid. This way
> we'll have, for example, device_model_machine="pc" vs
> device_model_machine="q35"... a bit unclear I think. This may be
> obvious for a QEMU user, but many Xen users didn't get used to QEMU
> machines and there might be some wondering why "q35" is not "pc" and
> why "pc" is an i440 system precisely.
> 
> Another obstacle here is xen_platform_device option which indirectly
> selects QEMU machine type for i440 at the moment (pc/xenfv), but this
> may be addressed by controlling the Xen platform device independently
> via a separate machine property or '-device xen-platform' like
> Eduardo Habkost suggested.

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 :|

Reply via email to