[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] Re: Libvirt debug API
- From: Anthony Liguori <anthony codemonkey ws>
- To: Avi Kivity <avi redhat com>
- Cc: Libvirt <libvir-list redhat com>, Jiri Denemark <jdenemar redhat com>, qemu-devel nongnu org
- Subject: Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] Re: Libvirt debug API
- Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:39:17 -0500
On 04/24/2010 04:46 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/23/2010 09:29 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Maybe. We'll still have issues. For example, sVirt: if a QMP
command names a labeled resource, the non-libvirt user will have no
way of knowing how to label it.
This is orthogonal to QMP and has to do strictly with how libvirt
prepares a resource for qemu.
It's not orthogonal. If you allow qmp access behind libvirt's back,
it's a problem that you will have.
My point was, if libvirt is just exposing raw qemu features, then it
should be possible for qemu to arbitrate concurrent access. If libvirt
implements features on top of qemu, then no other third party will be
able to co-exist with those features without interacting with qemu.
It's an impossible problem for qemu to solve (arbitrating access to
state stored in a third party management app).
1) Allow libvirt users to access features of qemu that are not
exposed through libvirt
That's an artificial problem. If libvirt exposes all features, you
don't need to solve it.
It won't. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
2) Provide a means for non-libvirt users to interact with qemu
We have qmp. It doesn't do multiple guest management. I think it's
reasonable to have a qemud which does (and also does sVirt and the
zillion other things libvirt does) provided we remove them from
libvirt (long term). The only problem is that it's a lot of effort.
It depends on what things you think are important. A lot of libvirt's
complexity is based on the fact that it uses a daemon and needs to deal
with the security implications of that. You don't need explicit
labelling if you don't use a daemon. This is really the qemu model (as
opposed to the xend model). In theory, it does support this with the
session urls but they are currently second-class citizens in libvirt.
The remote dispatch also adds a fair bit of complexity and at least for
the use-cases I'm interested in, it's not an important feature.
3) Provide a unified and interoperable view of the world for
non-libvirt and libvirt users
This problem can be solved by the non-libvirt users adopting libvirt,
or the libvirt users dropping libvirt. I don't understand why we need
to add interoperability between users who choose an interoperability
library and users who don't choose an interoperability library.
What I'd like to avoid is user confusion. Should a user use libvirt or
libqemu? If they make a decision to use libqemu and then down the road
want to use libvirt, how hard is it to switch? Fragmentation hurts the
ecosystem and discourages good applications from existing. I think it's
our responsibility to ensure there's a good management API that exists
for qemu that we can actively recommend to our users. libvirt is very
good at typical virtualization uses of qemu but qemu is much more than
just that and has lots of advanced features.
For (1), we all agree that the best case scenario would be for
libvirt to support every qemu feature. I think we can also all agree
though that this is not really practical and certainly not practical
for developers since there is a development cost associated with
libvirt support (to model an API appropriately).
All except me, perhaps.
We already have two layers of feature modeling: first, we mostly
emulate real life, not invent new features. PCI hotplug existed long
before qemu had support for it. Second, we do give some thought into
how we expose it through QMP. libvirt doesn't have to invent it
again, it only has to expose it through its lovely xml and C APIs.
That's not what the libvirt community wants to do. We're very bias.
We've made decisions about how features should be exposed and what
features should be included. We want all of those features exposed
exactly how we've implemented them because we think it's the right way.
I'm not sure there's an obvious way forward unless we decide that there
is going to be two ways to interact with qemu. One way is through the
libvirt world-view and the other is through a more qemu centric view.
The problem then becomes allowing those two models to co-exist happily
The alternative is to get libvirt to just act as a thin layer to expose
qemu features directly. But honestly, what's the point of libvirt if
they did that? For the most part, the pool management is not
virtualization specific and you could have libvirt provide that
functionality without it knowing a thing about qemu.
The new API proposed addresses (1) by allowing a user to drill down
to the QMP context. It's a good solution IMHO and I think we all
agree that there's an inherent risk to this that users will have to
evaluate on a case-by-case basis. It's a good stop-gap though.
(2) is largely addressed by QMP and a config file. I'd like to see a
nice C library, but I think a lot of other folks are happy with JSON
support in higher level languages.
I agree with them. C is a pretty bad choice for managing qemu (or
even, C is a pretty bad choice).
(3) is the place where there are still potential challenges. I think
at the very least, our goal should be to enable conversion from (2)
and (1) to be as easy as possible. That's why I have proposed
implementing a C library for the JSON transport because we could
plumb that through the new libvirt API. This would allow a user to
very quickly port an application from QMP to libvirt. In order to do
this, we need the libvirt API to expose a dedicated monitor because
we'll need to be able to manipulate events and negotiate features.
Most likely any application that talks QMP will hide the protocol
behind a function call interface anyway.
Beyond simple porting, there's a secondary question of having
non-libvirt apps co-exist with libvirt apps. I think it's a good
long term goal, but I don't think we should worry too much about it now.
libvirt needs to either support all but the most esoteric use cases,
or to get out of the way completely.
That's not where it is today or the path I think they're taking. I'm
also not the person you have to convince of this.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]