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

Re: device compatibility interface for live migration with assigned devices



On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:16:28 +0100
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange redhat com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:01:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >    On 2020/8/18 下午4:55, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > 
> >  On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:24:30AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > 
> >  On 2020/8/14 下午1:16, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > 
> >  On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:24:50PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > 
> >  On 2020/8/10 下午3:46, Yan Zhao wrote:  
> 
> >  we actually can also retrieve the same information through sysfs, .e.g
> > 
> >  |- [path to device]
> >     |--- migration
> >     |     |--- self
> >     |     |   |---device_api
> >     |    |   |---mdev_type
> >     |    |   |---software_version
> >     |    |   |---device_id
> >     |    |   |---aggregator
> >     |     |--- compatible
> >     |     |   |---device_api
> >     |    |   |---mdev_type
> >     |    |   |---software_version
> >     |    |   |---device_id
> >     |    |   |---aggregator
> > 
> > 
> >  Yes but:
> > 
> >  - You need one file per attribute (one syscall for one attribute)
> >  - Attribute is coupled with kobject

Is that really that bad? You have the device with an embedded kobject
anyway, and you can just put things into an attribute group?

[Also, I think that self/compatible split in the example makes things
needlessly complex. Shouldn't semantic versioning and matching already
cover nearly everything? I would expect very few cases that are more
complex than that. Maybe the aggregation stuff, but I don't think we
need that self/compatible split for that, either.]

> > 
> >  All of above seems unnecessary.
> > 
> >  Another point, as we discussed in another thread, it's really hard to make
> >  sure the above API work for all types of devices and frameworks. So having a
> >  vendor specific API looks much better.
> > 
> >  From the POV of userspace mgmt apps doing device compat checking / migration,
> >  we certainly do NOT want to use different vendor specific APIs. We want to
> >  have an API that can be used / controlled in a standard manner across vendors.
> > 
> >    Yes, but it could be hard. E.g vDPA will chose to use devlink (there's a
> >    long debate on sysfs vs devlink). So if we go with sysfs, at least two
> >    APIs needs to be supported ...  
> 
> NB, I was not questioning devlink vs sysfs directly. If devlink is related
> to netlink, I can't say I'm enthusiastic as IMKE sysfs is easier to deal
> with. I don't know enough about devlink to have much of an opinion though.
> The key point was that I don't want the userspace APIs we need to deal with
> to be vendor specific.

>From what I've seen of devlink, it seems quite nice; but I understand
why sysfs might be easier to deal with (especially as there's likely
already a lot of code using it.)

I understand that some users would like devlink because it is already
widely used for network drivers (and some others), but I don't think
the majority of devices used with vfio are network (although certainly
a lot of them are.)

> 
> What I care about is that we have a *standard* userspace API for performing
> device compatibility checking / state migration, for use by QEMU/libvirt/
> OpenStack, such that we can write code without countless vendor specific
> code paths.
> 
> If there is vendor specific stuff on the side, that's fine as we can ignore
> that, but the core functionality for device compat / migration needs to be
> standardized.

To summarize:
- choose one of sysfs or devlink
- have a common interface, with a standardized way to add
  vendor-specific attributes
?


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