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

[Igor Mammedov]

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.

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.

> If yes, I got another question.  If you want to configure NUMA, you need
> to use --preconfig.  If you also want to configure one of the things you
> can't with --preconfig, you need to use -S.  In other words, you need to
> use both.  How would that work?
It works and described in commit message of
"[PATCH for-2.13 v5 03/11] cli: add --preconfig option"
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10323879/

"
When early introspection/configuration is done, command 'cont' should
be used to exit RUN_STATE_PRECONFIG and transition to the next
requested state (i.e. if -S is used then QEMU will pause the second
time when board/device initialization is completed or start guest
execution if -S isn't provided on CLI)
"
> 
> > 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)

> Documentation (including -help) needs to provide clear guidance on what
> to use when.
for -help part the same '[PATCH for-2.13 v5 03/11] cli: add --preconfig option'
As for commands that are allowed to run at --preconfig time, it is
documented in QAPI schema
'[PATCH for-2.13 v5 05/11] qapi: introduce new cmd  option 
"allowed-in-preconfig"'
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/895314/

> >> > > Even if we follow your approach, we need to answer these
> >> > > questions.  I'm sure we will try to reorder initialization steps
> >> > > between the preconfig/prelaunch states in the future, and we
> >> > > shouldn't break any expectations from external users when doing
> >> > > that.  
> >> As minimum I expect -preconfig to be a runtime equivalent to CLI,
> >> with difference that it will be interactive and use QMP interface.
> >> As long as it sits between CLI parsing and the rest of initialization
> >> it shouldn't break that.  
> >
> > What prevents us from making -S a runtime equivalent to CLI?  
Possibly [1] earlier answers it.

> Good question.  Igor?
> 
> >> > Moreover, the questions need to be answered in Git.  Commit message,
> >> > comments, docs/, use your judgement.  
> >> I've thought that commit messages/patches were describing introduced
> >> changes sufficiently.  
> 
> Keep in mind that your poor reviewers context-switch to your patches
> from somewhere else entirely, then read (mostly) linearly, starting with
> the cover letter.  If the cover letter leads to questions and confusion,
> the reading likely stops.  Answers in the commit messages won't do you a
> lick of good then.
> 
> It's really, really useful to state the case for the feature right in
> the cover letter.  "What" and "why", not "how".  Write for your
> audience!  The cover letter's audience knows nothing (first order
> approximation).  Don't make them guess.  Especially not "why".  Keep it
> high-level.  Pointers to (specific!) commit messages for additional
> detail can make sense.
I'll try to write better cover letter if I end up respinning v5

> >>                       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?

> Yes, please.  Additionally, guidance for users on which of them to use.