Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] cpu-add compatibility for query-hotpluggable-cpus implementations

[Igor Mammedov]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 17:06:18 +0200
Peter Krempa <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 19:19:18 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > I'm not entirely sure if this is a good idea, and if it is whether
> > this is a good approach to it.  But I'd like to discuss it and see if
> > anyone has better ideas.
> > 
> > As you may know we've hit a bunch of complications with cpu_index
> > which will impose some limitations with what we can do with the new
> > query-hotpluggable-cpus interface, and we've run out of time to
> > address these in qemu-2.7.
> >
> > At the same time we're hitting complications with the fact that the
> > new qemu interface requires a new libvirt interface to use properly,
> > and that has follow on effects further up the stack.  
> 
> The libvirt interface is basically now depending on adding a working
> implementation for qemu or a different hypervisor. APIs without
> implementation are not accepted upstream.
> 
> It looks like there are the following problems which make the above
> hard:
> 
> First of the problem is the missing link between the NUMA topology
> (currently confirured via 'cpu id' which is not linked in any way to the
> query-hotpluggable-cpus entries). This basically means that I'll have to
> re-implement the qemu numbering scheme and hope that it doesn't change
> until a better approach is added.
with current 'in order' plug/unplug limitation behavior is the same as
for cpu-add (wrt x86) so device_add could be used as direct replacement
of cpu-add in NUMA case.

Numa node to CPU in query-hotpluggable-cpus a missing part
but once numa mapping for hotplugged CPUs (which is broken now) is fixed
(fix https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-07/msg00595.html)
I'll be ready to extend x86.query-hotpluggable-cpus with numa mapping
that -numa cpus=1,2,3... happened to configure.
(note: that device_add cpu,node=X that doesn't match whatever has been
configured with -numa cpus=... will rise error, as numa configuration
is static and fixed at VM creation time, meaning that "node" option
in query-hotpluggable-cpus is optional and only to inform users to
which node cpu belongs)

> Secondly from my understanding of the current state it's impossible to
> select an arbitrary cpu to hotplug but they need to happen 'in order' of
> the cpu id pointed out above (which is not accessible). The grand plan
> is to allow adding the cpus in any order. This makes the feature look
> like a proof of concept rather than something useful.
having out-of-order plug/unplug would be nice but that wasn't
the grand plan. Main reason is to replace cpu-add with 'device_add cpu' and
on top of that provide support for 'device_del cpu' instead of adding cpu-del
command.
And as result of migration to device_add to avoid changing -smp to match
present cpus count on target and reuse the same interface as other devices.

We can still pick 'out of order' device_add cpu using migration_id patch
and revert in-order limit patch. It would work for x86,
but I think there were issues with SPAPR, that's why I'm in favor of
in-order limit approach.

> The two problems above make this feature hard to implement and hard to
> sell to libvirt's upstream.
> 
> > Together this means a bunch more delays to having usable CPU hotplug
> > on Power for downstream users, which is unfortunate.  
> 
> I'm not in favor of adding upstream hacks for sake of downstream
> deadlines.
> 
> > This is an attempt to get something limited working in a shorter time
> > frame, by implementing the old cpu-add interface in terms of the new
> > interface.  Obviously this can't fully exploit the new interface's
> > capabilities, but you can do basic in-order cpu hotplug without removal.  
> 
> As a side note, cpu-add technically allows out of order usage. Libvirt
> didn't use it that way though.
out-of-order cpu-add breaks migration that's why it's not been used.

> > To make this work, I need to broaden the semantics of cpu-add: it will
> > a single entry from query-hotpluggable-cpus, which means it may add
> > multiple vcpus, which the x86 implementation did not previously do.  
> 
> See my response to 2/2. If this requires to add -device for the
> hotplugged entries when migrating it basically doesn't help at all.
> 
> > I'm not sure if the intended semantics of cpu-add were ever defined
> > well enough to say if this is "wrong" or not.  
> 
> For x86 I'll also need to experiment with the combined use of cpu-add
> and device_add interfaces.
It should work, though I'd not recommend to use them together as cpu-add
will be obsoleted eventually.

>I plan to add a implementation which
> basically uses the old API in libvirt but calls the new APIs in qemu if
> they were used previously. 
(skip)

>(We still need to fall back to the old API for migration compatibility)
Why?

> 
> > Because of this, I suspect libvirt will still need some work, but I'm
> > hoping it might be less that the full new API implementation.  
> 
> Mostly as adding a single entry via the interface will result in
> multiple entries in query-cpus. Also libvirt's interface takes the
> target number of vcpus as argument so any increment that is not
> divisible by the thread count needs to be rejected.
> 
> Peter
>