[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH V2] Expose all CPU features in host definition



On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:03:55PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:51:32AM -0600, Don Dugger wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:24:48AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:35:58AM -0600, Don Dugger wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:27:36AM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:32:35 -0600, Don Dugger wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 03:06:52PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > > > > > > I was just trying to say that it doesn't provide anything more than
> > > > > > > "it's supported by the host CPU", which gives mostly no value in the
> > > > > > > context of libvirt. Can you explain more what the use case is in which a
> > > > > > > virt client would need to know what specific feature are supported by
> > > > > > > host CPU? I feel like we should avoid people from being under the
> > > > > > > impression that they can actually use the CPU capabilities for checking
> > > > > > > whether a host can run guests that require specific CPU features.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The specific use case I'm trying to address is a cloud environment where,
> > > > > > with hundreds of hosts, you might want to schedule an instance to a host
> > > > > > that supports a particular HW acceleration, like AES/NI.  I agree, what
> > > > > > I `really` want is an API that shows the capabilities of a specific guest
> > > > > > that could be created on the host but, absent that API, at least knowing
> > > > > > that a host doesn't support the feature is more information than I can get
> > > > > > right now.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmm, fair enough. Let's wait a few days for Daniel to return from
> > > > > vacation in case he wants to express his opinion here.
> > > > 
> > > > So, any progress here?
> > > 
> > > I believe the cloud use case above is approaching the problem in the wrong
> > > way. We designed our APIs such that apps should never need to write logic
> > > for comparing CPU features directly. If an application has a set of CPU
> > > features it requires from the host, then it should use a libvirt API to
> > > query whether those features are available, not try to write the CPU
> > > fetaure comparison logic itself.
> > > 
> > > You can already pretty much do this with te virConnectCompareCPU()
> > > method, by passing an XML document which specifies the AES/NI feature
> > > flag that you want to check for support of. Then libvirt will tell
> > > you whether the host CPU can support it. It is entirely possible to
> > > make use of this capability as is in OpenStack.
> > 
> > I don't think this would work with the way scheduling in OpenStack works.
> > The problem is that the OpenStack scheduler doesn't want to query each node
> > in the system on every schedule request (with 100s if not 1,000s of compute
> > nodes this would not be practical).  Instead the scheduler maintains info
> > about all of the compute nodes and, when a request comes in, the scheduler
> > identifies the best compute node for the request and then causes the VM
> > to be started on that node.  Apriori the scheduler doesn't even know which
> > CPU features users are interested in, that information only becomes available
> > when a schedule request comes in so trying to do a `virConnectCompareCPU()'
> > call at that point in time is too late.
> 
> I think your model for user interaction is wrong here. I don't believe
> that OpenStack should be directly exposing the ability for a user to
> explicitly request individual CPU flags for individual VMs. This is
> too risky from a cloud administrator POV, because it could result in
> a user monopolizing a small subset of machines in the guest with
> particular features.  Instead an administrator should be defining
> new flavours with specific CPU feature characteristics. The user can

That's the exact mechanism that is being proposed, the ability to define
a flavor that specifies capabilities that are required.  The issue is
that the flavor is defined independently from the scheduler, it's only
when a schedule request is made that the flavor is presented to the scheduler
and then the scheduler needs to identify which of 1,000s of nodes can
satisfy that flavor.

There shouldn't be a problem with users monopolizing machines because
the cloud administrator defines the flavors and can charge appropriate
premium prices for specific flavors.

> then choose the flavour with the CPU characteristics. In this way the
> system can know ahead of time what flavours are possible on what
> host, and do you don't need to query all nodes at scheduling time.

Note I am not proposing that we make a query at schedule time.  The
system is already setup to have the compute nodes send configuration
info to the scheduler, all I want to do is sent complete info (e.g. all
of the CPU features).

> 
> Daniel
> -- 
> |: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
> |: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
> |: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
> |: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
> 

-- 
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
n0ano n0ano com
Ph: 303/443-3786


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]