[ovirt-devel] Re: device compatibility interface for live migration with assigned devices
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:02:44PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:50:11 +0100 > Sean Mooney wrote: > > > On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 14:38 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 10:13:09 +0800 > > > Yan Zhao wrote: > > > > > > > > > still, I'd like to put it more explicitly to make ensure it's not > > > > > > missed: > > > > > > the reason we want to specify compatible_type as a trait and check > > > > > > whether target compatible_type is the superset of source > > > > > > compatible_type is for the consideration of backward compatibility. > > > > > > e.g. > > > > > > an old generation device may have a mdev type xxx-v4-yyy, while a > > > > > > newer > > > > > > generation device may be of mdev type xxx-v5-yyy. > > > > > > with the compatible_type traits, the old generation device is still > > > > > > able to be regarded as compatible to newer generation device even > > > > > > their > > > > > > mdev types are not equal. > > > > > > > > > > If you want to support migration from v4 to v5, can't the (presumably > > > > > newer) driver that supports v5 simply register the v4 type as well, so > > > > > that the mdev can be created as v4? (Just like QEMU versioned machine > > > > > types work.) > > > > > > > > yes, it should work in some conditions. > > > > but it may not be that good in some cases when v5 and v4 in the name > > > > string > > > > of mdev type identify hardware generation (e.g. v4 for gen8, and v5 for > > > > gen9) > > > > > > > > e.g. > > > > (1). when src mdev type is v4 and target mdev type is v5 as > > > > software does not support it initially, and v4 and v5 identify hardware > > > > differences. > > > > > > My first hunch here is: Don't introduce types that may be compatible > > > later. Either make them compatible, or make them distinct by design, > > > and possibly add a different, compatible type later. > > > > > > > then after software upgrade, v5 is now compatible to v4, should the > > > > software now downgrade mdev type from v5 to v4? > > > > not sure if moving hardware generation info into a separate attribute > > > > from mdev type name is better. e.g. remove v4, v5 in mdev type, while > > > > use > > > > compatible_pci_ids to identify compatibility. > > > > > > If the generations are compatible, don't mention it in the mdev type. > > > If they aren't, use distinct types, so that management software doesn't > > > have to guess. At least that would be my naive approach here. > > yep that is what i would prefer to see too. > > > > > > > > > > > (2) name string of mdev type is composed by "driver_name + type_name". > > > > in some devices, e.g. qat, different generations of devices are binding > > > > to > > > > drivers of different names, e.g. "qat-v4", "qat-v5". > > > > then though type_name is equal, mdev type is not equal. e.g. > > > > "qat-v4-type1", "qat-v5-type1". > > > > > > I guess that shows a shortcoming of that "driver_name + type_name" > > > approach? Or maybe I'm just confused. > > yes i really dont like haveing the version in the mdev-type name > > i would stongly perfger just qat-type-1 wehere qat is just there as a way > > of namespacing. > > although symmetric-cryto, asymmetric-cryto and compression woudl be a > > better name then type-1, type-2, type-3 if > > that is what they would end up mapping too. e.g. qat-compression or qat-aes > > is a much better name then type-1 > > higher layers of software are unlikely to parse the mdev names but as a > > human looking at them its much eaiser to > > understand if the names are meaningful. the qat prefix i think is important > > however to make sure that your mdev-types > > dont colide with other vendeors mdev types. so i woudl encurage all vendors > > to prefix there mdev types with etiher the > > device name or the vendor. > > +1 to all this, the mdev type is meant to indicate a software > compatible interface, if different hardware versions can be software > compatible, then don't make the job of finding a compatible device > harder. The full type is a combination of the vendor driver name plus > the vendor provided type name specifically in order to provide a type > namespace per vendor driver. That's done at the mdev core level. > Thanks, hi Alex, got it. so do you suggest that vendors use consistent driver name over generations of devices? for qat, they create different modules for each generation. This practice is not good if they want to support migration between devices of different generations, right? and can I understand that we don't want support of migration between different mdev types even in future ? Thanks Yan ___ Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@ovirt.org Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/privacy-policy.html oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ List Archives:
[ovirt-devel] Re: device compatibility interface for live migration with assigned devices
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:50:11 +0100 Sean Mooney wrote: > On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 14:38 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 10:13:09 +0800 > > Yan Zhao wrote: > > > > > > > still, I'd like to put it more explicitly to make ensure it's not > > > > > missed: > > > > > the reason we want to specify compatible_type as a trait and check > > > > > whether target compatible_type is the superset of source > > > > > compatible_type is for the consideration of backward compatibility. > > > > > e.g. > > > > > an old generation device may have a mdev type xxx-v4-yyy, while a > > > > > newer > > > > > generation device may be of mdev type xxx-v5-yyy. > > > > > with the compatible_type traits, the old generation device is still > > > > > able to be regarded as compatible to newer generation device even > > > > > their > > > > > mdev types are not equal. > > > > > > > > If you want to support migration from v4 to v5, can't the (presumably > > > > newer) driver that supports v5 simply register the v4 type as well, so > > > > that the mdev can be created as v4? (Just like QEMU versioned machine > > > > types work.) > > > > > > yes, it should work in some conditions. > > > but it may not be that good in some cases when v5 and v4 in the name > > > string > > > of mdev type identify hardware generation (e.g. v4 for gen8, and v5 for > > > gen9) > > > > > > e.g. > > > (1). when src mdev type is v4 and target mdev type is v5 as > > > software does not support it initially, and v4 and v5 identify hardware > > > differences. > > > > My first hunch here is: Don't introduce types that may be compatible > > later. Either make them compatible, or make them distinct by design, > > and possibly add a different, compatible type later. > > > > > then after software upgrade, v5 is now compatible to v4, should the > > > software now downgrade mdev type from v5 to v4? > > > not sure if moving hardware generation info into a separate attribute > > > from mdev type name is better. e.g. remove v4, v5 in mdev type, while use > > > compatible_pci_ids to identify compatibility. > > > > If the generations are compatible, don't mention it in the mdev type. > > If they aren't, use distinct types, so that management software doesn't > > have to guess. At least that would be my naive approach here. > yep that is what i would prefer to see too. > > > > > > > > (2) name string of mdev type is composed by "driver_name + type_name". > > > in some devices, e.g. qat, different generations of devices are binding to > > > drivers of different names, e.g. "qat-v4", "qat-v5". > > > then though type_name is equal, mdev type is not equal. e.g. > > > "qat-v4-type1", "qat-v5-type1". > > > > I guess that shows a shortcoming of that "driver_name + type_name" > > approach? Or maybe I'm just confused. > yes i really dont like haveing the version in the mdev-type name > i would stongly perfger just qat-type-1 wehere qat is just there as a way of > namespacing. > although symmetric-cryto, asymmetric-cryto and compression woudl be a better > name then type-1, type-2, type-3 if > that is what they would end up mapping too. e.g. qat-compression or qat-aes > is a much better name then type-1 > higher layers of software are unlikely to parse the mdev names but as a human > looking at them its much eaiser to > understand if the names are meaningful. the qat prefix i think is important > however to make sure that your mdev-types > dont colide with other vendeors mdev types. so i woudl encurage all vendors > to prefix there mdev types with etiher the > device name or the vendor. +1 to all this, the mdev type is meant to indicate a software compatible interface, if different hardware versions can be software compatible, then don't make the job of finding a compatible device harder. The full type is a combination of the vendor driver name plus the vendor provided type name specifically in order to provide a type namespace per vendor driver. That's done at the mdev core level. Thanks, Alex ___ Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@ovirt.org Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/privacy-policy.html oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ List Archives:
[ovirt-devel] Re: device compatibility interface for live migration with assigned devices
On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 14:38 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 10:13:09 +0800 > Yan Zhao wrote: > > > > > still, I'd like to put it more explicitly to make ensure it's not > > > > missed: > > > > the reason we want to specify compatible_type as a trait and check > > > > whether target compatible_type is the superset of source > > > > compatible_type is for the consideration of backward compatibility. > > > > e.g. > > > > an old generation device may have a mdev type xxx-v4-yyy, while a newer > > > > generation device may be of mdev type xxx-v5-yyy. > > > > with the compatible_type traits, the old generation device is still > > > > able to be regarded as compatible to newer generation device even their > > > > mdev types are not equal. > > > > > > If you want to support migration from v4 to v5, can't the (presumably > > > newer) driver that supports v5 simply register the v4 type as well, so > > > that the mdev can be created as v4? (Just like QEMU versioned machine > > > types work.) > > > > yes, it should work in some conditions. > > but it may not be that good in some cases when v5 and v4 in the name string > > of mdev type identify hardware generation (e.g. v4 for gen8, and v5 for > > gen9) > > > > e.g. > > (1). when src mdev type is v4 and target mdev type is v5 as > > software does not support it initially, and v4 and v5 identify hardware > > differences. > > My first hunch here is: Don't introduce types that may be compatible > later. Either make them compatible, or make them distinct by design, > and possibly add a different, compatible type later. > > > then after software upgrade, v5 is now compatible to v4, should the > > software now downgrade mdev type from v5 to v4? > > not sure if moving hardware generation info into a separate attribute > > from mdev type name is better. e.g. remove v4, v5 in mdev type, while use > > compatible_pci_ids to identify compatibility. > > If the generations are compatible, don't mention it in the mdev type. > If they aren't, use distinct types, so that management software doesn't > have to guess. At least that would be my naive approach here. yep that is what i would prefer to see too. > > > > > (2) name string of mdev type is composed by "driver_name + type_name". > > in some devices, e.g. qat, different generations of devices are binding to > > drivers of different names, e.g. "qat-v4", "qat-v5". > > then though type_name is equal, mdev type is not equal. e.g. > > "qat-v4-type1", "qat-v5-type1". > > I guess that shows a shortcoming of that "driver_name + type_name" > approach? Or maybe I'm just confused. yes i really dont like haveing the version in the mdev-type name i would stongly perfger just qat-type-1 wehere qat is just there as a way of namespacing. although symmetric-cryto, asymmetric-cryto and compression woudl be a better name then type-1, type-2, type-3 if that is what they would end up mapping too. e.g. qat-compression or qat-aes is a much better name then type-1 higher layers of software are unlikely to parse the mdev names but as a human looking at them its much eaiser to understand if the names are meaningful. the qat prefix i think is important however to make sure that your mdev-types dont colide with other vendeors mdev types. so i woudl encurage all vendors to prefix there mdev types with etiher the device name or the vendor. > ___ Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@ovirt.org Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/privacy-policy.html oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/35R5DDFQLUS5FR7C3J72OSX6ZD6UYJWT/
[ovirt-devel] Re: device compatibility interface for live migration with assigned devices
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 10:13:09 +0800 Yan Zhao wrote: > > > still, I'd like to put it more explicitly to make ensure it's not missed: > > > the reason we want to specify compatible_type as a trait and check > > > whether target compatible_type is the superset of source > > > compatible_type is for the consideration of backward compatibility. > > > e.g. > > > an old generation device may have a mdev type xxx-v4-yyy, while a newer > > > generation device may be of mdev type xxx-v5-yyy. > > > with the compatible_type traits, the old generation device is still > > > able to be regarded as compatible to newer generation device even their > > > mdev types are not equal. > > > > If you want to support migration from v4 to v5, can't the (presumably > > newer) driver that supports v5 simply register the v4 type as well, so > > that the mdev can be created as v4? (Just like QEMU versioned machine > > types work.) > yes, it should work in some conditions. > but it may not be that good in some cases when v5 and v4 in the name string > of mdev type identify hardware generation (e.g. v4 for gen8, and v5 for > gen9) > > e.g. > (1). when src mdev type is v4 and target mdev type is v5 as > software does not support it initially, and v4 and v5 identify hardware > differences. My first hunch here is: Don't introduce types that may be compatible later. Either make them compatible, or make them distinct by design, and possibly add a different, compatible type later. > then after software upgrade, v5 is now compatible to v4, should the > software now downgrade mdev type from v5 to v4? > not sure if moving hardware generation info into a separate attribute > from mdev type name is better. e.g. remove v4, v5 in mdev type, while use > compatible_pci_ids to identify compatibility. If the generations are compatible, don't mention it in the mdev type. If they aren't, use distinct types, so that management software doesn't have to guess. At least that would be my naive approach here. > > (2) name string of mdev type is composed by "driver_name + type_name". > in some devices, e.g. qat, different generations of devices are binding to > drivers of different names, e.g. "qat-v4", "qat-v5". > then though type_name is equal, mdev type is not equal. e.g. > "qat-v4-type1", "qat-v5-type1". I guess that shows a shortcoming of that "driver_name + type_name" approach? Or maybe I'm just confused. ___ Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@ovirt.org Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/privacy-policy.html oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/ZTTN4BYSRXYONOUBYNOULBUHVD2PMZ7F/
