From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] kvm: x86: export vCPU halted state to sysfs
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 11:01:37 -0500
Message-ID: <20180202110137.2e2c1816@redhat.com>
References: <20180201125441.2f5b4fdd@redhat.com>
        <20180201201514.GB660@flask>
        <20180201202649.GG26425@localhost.localdomain>
        <edc27e9a-9660-eed0-dd03-016fa2e966b7@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <20180202141554.GH26425@localhost.localdomain>
        <96d66ae2-5c51-510f-06a5-cecdda74cfd4@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <20180202102231.7dc9a945@redhat.com>
        <86571633-ae6d-5678-7611-549ff41dccd8@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <20180202155415.GN15403@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Cc: Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
        Radim =?UTF-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com>,
        John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com>, libvir-list@redhat.com,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: "Daniel P. =?UTF-8?B?QmVycmFuZ8Op?=" <berrange@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46946 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751651AbeBBQBp (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 2 Feb 2018 11:01:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20180202155415.GN15403@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:54:15 +0000
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:

> > > The most important question I have is: does this solution satisfy the
> > > needs of upper management? That is, if we implement the solution suggested
> > > by Eduardo than the feature of automatically hotplugging more CPUs
> > > will only work for s390. Is this OK?
> > > 
> > > If yes, then I think this is the best solution. And the next question
> > > would be: Viktor, can you change this in libvirt while we fix query-cpus
> > > in QEMU?
> > >   
> > The latest proposal was to use a flag for query-cpus (like full-state)
> > which would control the set of properties queried and reported. If this
> > is the way we decide to go, I can make the necessary changes in libvirt.  
> 
> Regardless of whether we add that flag to query-cpus or not, we still have
> the general problem of solving the cross-architecture semantics to be
> more sane.

Let's the both then:

 o Make qemuDomainRefreshVcpuHalted() s390-only in libvirt. This by
   itself fixes the original performance issue

 o Deprecate the "halted" field in query-cpus in QEMU. This fixes new
   instances of this same problem