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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH RFC 0/3] Add mechanisms to force QEMU capabilities refetches

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 02:22:12PM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
> On 11/14/18 4:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 03:21:03PM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
> >> Sending as an RFC primarily because I'm looking for whether either
> >> or both mechanisms in the series is more or less desired. Likewise,
> >> if it's felt that the current process of telling customers to just
> >> delete the cache is acceptible, then so be it. If there's other ideas
> >> I'm willing to give them a go too. I did consider adding a virsh
> >> option to "virsh capabilities" (still possible) and/or a virt-admin
> >> option to force the refresh. These just were "easier" and didn't
> >> require an API adjustment to implement.
> >>
> >> Patch1 is essentially a means to determine if the kernel config
> >> was changed to allow nested virtualization and to force a refresh
> >> of the capabilities in that case. Without doing so the CPU settings
> >> for a guest may not add the vmx=on depending on configuration and
> >> for the user that doesn't make sense. There is a private bz on this
> >> so I won't bother posting it.
> >>
> >> Patch2 and Patch3 make use of the 'service libvirtd reload' function
> >> in order to invalidate all the entries in the internal QEMU capabilities
> >> hash table and then to force a reread. This perhaps has downsides related
> >> to guest usage and previous means to use reload and not refresh if a guest
> >> was running. On the other hand, we tell people to just clear the QEMU
> >> capabilities cache (e.g. rm /var/cache/libvirt/qemu/capabilities/*.xml)
> >> and restart libvirtd, so in essence, the same result. It's not clear
> >> how frequently this is used (it's essentially a SIGHUP to libvirtd).
> > 
> > IMHO the fact that we cache stuff should be completely invisible outside
> > of libvirt. Sure we've had some bugs in this area, but they are not very
> > frequent so I'm not enthusiastic to expose any knob to force rebuild beyond
> > just deleting files.
> > 
> OK - so that more or less obviates patch2 and patch3...
> Of course the fact that we cache stuff hasn't been completely invisible
> and telling someone to fix the problem by "simply" removing the cache
> files and pointing them to the cache location seems a bit "awkward" once
> you figure out that is the problem of course. Many times it's just not
> intuitively obvious!
> OTOH, baking in the idea that a "reload" could remove the chance that
> caching was the problem could be useful. I guess it just felt like it
> was a perhaps less used option. Assuming of course most would use
> stop/start or restart instead.

Looking at this from a more general POV,  cache invalidation bugs are
just one of many different bugs that can & have impacted libvirt over
the years. Adding a force reload API is essentially saying we want to


because we think we might have a future bug. I don't think that is a
good design precedent or rationale - essentially its admitting failure.
If caching really were so terribly implemented that this is considered
needed, then I'd argue caching should be deleted. I don't think we are
in such a bad case though - the kind of problems have been fairly
niche in impact.

|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|

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