Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 0/9] enable numa configuration before machine_init() from QMP

[Igor Mammedov]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:05:54 -0300
Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:50:16AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:31:18 +0200
> > Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> >   
> > > Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> writes:
> > >   
> > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:00:04AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:    
> > > >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:08:30 +0200
> > > >> Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > >>     
> > > >> > Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> writes:
> > > >> >     
> > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 05:41:10PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:     
> > > >> > >  
> > > >> > >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:27:39 -0300
> > > >> > >> Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > >> > >>       
> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:13:34PM +0200, Markus Armbruster 
> > > >> > >> > wrote:      
> > > >> > >> > > Igor Mammedov <address@hidden> writes:
> > > >> > >> > > 
> > > >> > >> > > [...]        
> > > >> > >> > > > Series allows to configure NUMA mapping at runtime using QMP
> > > >> > >> > > > interface. For that to happen it introduces a new 
> > > >> > >> > > > '-preconfig' CLI option
> > > >> > >> > > > which allows to pause QEMU before machine_init() is run and
> > > >> > >> > > > adds new set-numa-node QMP command which in conjunction with
> > > >> > >> > > > query-hotpluggable-cpus allows to configure NUMA mapping 
> > > >> > >> > > > for cpus.
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Later we can modify other commands to run early, for 
> > > >> > >> > > > example device_add.
> > > >> > >> > > > I recall SPAPR had problem when libvirt started QEMU with 
> > > >> > >> > > > -S and, while it's
> > > >> > >> > > > paused, added CPUs with device_add. Intent was to coldplug 
> > > >> > >> > > > CPUs (but at that
> > > >> > >> > > > stage it's considered hotplug already), so SPAPR had to 
> > > >> > >> > > > work around the issue.        
> > > >> > >> > > 
> > > >> > >> > > That instance is just stupidity / laziness, I think: we 
> > > >> > >> > > consider any
> > > >> > >> > > plug after machine creation a hot plug.  Real machines remain 
> > > >> > >> > > cold until
> > > >> > >> > > you press the power button.  Our virtual machines should 
> > > >> > >> > > remain cold
> > > >> > >> > > until they start running, i.e. with -S until the first 
> > > >> > >> > > "cont".      
> > > >> > >> It probably would be too risky to change semantics of -S from 
> > > >> > >> hotplug to coldplug.
> > > >> > >> But even if we were easy it won't matter in case if dynamic 
> > > >> > >> configuration
> > > >> > >> done properly. More on it below.
> > > >> > >>       
> > > >> > >> > > I vaguely remember me asking this before, but your answer 
> > > >> > >> > > didn't make it
> > > >> > >> > > into this cover letter, which gives me a pretext to ask again 
> > > >> > >> > > instead of
> > > >> > >> > > looking it up in the archives: what exactly prevents us from 
> > > >> > >> > > keeping the
> > > >> > >> > > machine cold enough for numa configuration until the first 
> > > >> > >> > > "cont"?        
> > > >> > >> > 
> > > >> > >> > I also think this would be better, but it seems to be difficult
> > > >> > >> > in practice, see:
> > > >> > >> > http://mid.mail-archive.com/address@hidden      
> > > >> > >> 
> > > >> > >> In addition to Eduardo's reply, here is what I've answered back
> > > >> > >> when you've asked question the 1st time (v2 late at -S pause 
> > > >> > >> point reconfig):
> > > >> > >> https://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg504140.html
> > > >> > >> 
> > > >> > >> In short:
> > > >> > >> I think it's wrong in general doing fixups after machine is build
> > > >> > >> instead of getting correct configuration before building machine.
> > > >> > >> That's going to be complex and fragile and might be hard to do at
> > > >> > >> all depending on what we are fixing up.      
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > What "building the machine" should mean, exactly, for external
> > > >> > > users?    
> > > >> under "building machine", I've meant machine_run_board_init()
> > > >> and all follow up steps to machine_done stage.
> > > >>     
> > > >> > > The main question I'd like to see answered is: why exactly we
> > > >> > > must "build" the machine before the first "cont" is issued when
> > > >> > > using -S?  Why can't we delay everything to "cont" when using -S?  
> > > >> > >     
> > > >> Nor sure what question is about,
> > > >> Did you mean if it were possible to postpone machine_run_board_init()
> > > >> and all later steps to -S/cont time?    
> > (1)
> > As David said -S pause point is practically breakpoint on some
> > instruction of built/existing machine and current monitor commands
> > expect it to be valid. Moving -S before machine_run_board_init()
> > will break semantics of current -S pause point (i.e. user expectation
> > on existing machine) as well as most of the commands that evolved
> > in environment where machine already existed.  
> 
> OK, so what's missing here is a clear description what the user
> can expect on -S.
Currently it's fully configured machine with all CLI options taken
in account in paused state in initial state or with state it is getting
from migration stream if -incoming were used in combination with -S.

> > Hence a new -preconfig option and runstate to avoid breaking
> > exiting users and being able to cleanly handle configuration that
> > affects machine_run_board_init().
> >   
> > > > Exactly.  In other words, what exactly must be done before the
> > > > monitor is available when using -S,  
> > for MUST, it should be commands that affect machine_run_board_init()
> > like being added set-numa-node
> >   
> > > > and what exactly can be postponed after "cont" when using -S?  
> > hotplug configuration and various runtime query commands that
> > expect built machine. (today it's most of the commands)
> > 
> > wrt configuration commands we should split them into coldplug
> > and hotplug ones (some could be both).
> >      
> > > >> > > Is it just because it's a long and complex task?  Does that mean
> > > >> > > we might still do that eventually, and eliminate the
> > > >> > > prelaunch/preconfig distinction in the distant future?      
> > > >> > 
> > > >> > Why would anyone want to use -S going forward?  For reasons other 
> > > >> > "we've
> > > >> > always used -S, and can't be bothered to change".    
> > > >> We should be able to deprecate/remove -S once we can do all
> > > >> initial configuration that's possible to do there at
> > > >> preconfig time.    
> > > 
> > > This sounds like there are things we can do with -S but can't
> > > --preconfig now.  Is that correct?  
> > yes, we can't do at --preconfig time anything that requires built machine.  
> 
> "built machine" is a very broad description.  We need to specify
> more clearly what "built machine" means for an external user.
> Does it mean having the QOM tree available?  Does it mean having
> the VCPU threads created?  Without defining what -S really must
> provide, we won't be able to deprecate and replace it.
(*2) how about s/built machine/machine ready to execute guest code/,
that's what it is now.


> > > > If the plan is to deprecate -S, what are the important
> > > > user-visible differences between -S and -preconfig today?  Do we
> > > > plan to eliminate all those differences before
> > > > deprecating/removing -S?  
> > we probably won't be able to deprecate -S in foreseeable future,
> > for that we would need to be able to do everything starting from
> > machine_run_board_init() to current pause point.
> > But we can gradually move configuration commands to -preconfig time
> > and gradually add CLI equivalents for that aren't possible at -S time
> > (like Paolo suggested picking to be used machine model at runtime)  
> 
> This could be a good plan, if we can explain why exactly -S is
> still needed.
For a while -S would be need at least for compat reasons, if we ever
get to point where at -preconfig time machine could be build up to the
point -S provides[2] then we can talk about deprecating it, for now it's
way too premature to do something about it /I mean documenting intent
which is not there yet and might never materialize as there is no real
demand to deprecate it/.

> [...]
> > > >>                       But I've been sitting on these patches for
> > > >> a long time and what's obvious to me might be not so clear to others.  
> > > >>   
> > > 
> > > Par for the course, don't feel bad about it.
> > >   
> > > >> I might just not see what's missing. Any suggestions to improve it
> > > >> are welcome.    
> > > >
> > > > I miss something that documents why both -S and -preconfig need
> > > > to exist, what are the differences between them today, and what
> > > > we plan to do about the differences between them in the future.  
> > Where would you prefer it being documented?  
> 
> I suggest qemu-options.hx and/or qemu-doc.texi.
Regarding qemu-options.hx patch
 "[PATCH for-2.13 v5 03/11] cli: add --preconfig option" 
adds doc text describing --preconfig option with explanation of how
'cont' could be used (including in combination with -S).

I'll try to come up with a text for qemu-doc.texi, not about
deprecating -S but about when --preconfig should be used vs -S
and where to get list of commands that could be used at preconfig state.

> BTW, "cont" is documented as "Resume guest VCPU execution", which
> is not true when using preconfig.  Maybe it's better to add a
> separate QMP command for "create machine and devices" instead of
> overloading the semantics of "cont"?
My bad, I've missed it, I can fixup 'cont' description to match
its behavior with --preconfig taken in account.

I'm not so sure about adding a new command is better though, I recall
Markus being against adding new commands unless we have to,
but I don't have strong inclination both ways so it's up to you.

I'm more inclined towards reusing 'cont', it seems logical 
(/me looking from the point if I were user).