From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760342Ab2CNJvZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:51:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51734 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759079Ab2CNJvY (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:51:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:21:14 +0530 From: Amit Shah To: Wen Congyang Cc: Avi Kivity , "Daniel P. Berrange" , kvm list , qemu-devel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Jan Kiszka , Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 v3] kvm: notify host when guest panicked Message-ID: <20120314095114.GA4136@amit.redhat.com> References: <4F58664D.1070800@cn.fujitsu.com> <4F58943E.1050402@redhat.com> <4F595B31.9090301@cn.fujitsu.com> <4F5DBC26.7060204@cn.fujitsu.com> <4F5DD0FD.9070904@redhat.com> <20120313091843.GB3800@redhat.com> <4F5F25BF.7060100@redhat.com> <4F6056FE.3020202@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F6056FE.3020202@cn.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On (Wed) 14 Mar 2012 [16:29:50], Wen Congyang wrote: > At 03/13/2012 06:47 PM, Avi Kivity Wrote: > > On 03/13/2012 11:18 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:33:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> On 03/12/2012 11:04 AM, Wen Congyang wrote: > >>>> Do you have any other comments about this patch? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Not really, but I'm not 100% convinced the patch is worthwhile. It's > >>> likely to only be used by Linux, which has kexec facilities, and you can > >>> put talk to management via virtio-serial and describe the crash in more > >>> details than a simple hypercall. > >> > >> As mentioned before, I don't think virtio-serial is a good fit for this. > >> We want something that is simple & guaranteed always available. Using > >> virtio-serial requires significant setup work on both the host and guest. > > > > So what? It needs to be done anyway for the guest agent. > > > >> Many management application won't know to make a vioserial device available > >> to all guests they create. > > > > Then they won't know to deal with the panic event either. > > > >> Most administrators won't even configure kexec, > >> let alone virtio serial on top of it. > > > > It should be done by the OS vendor, not the individual admin. > > > >> The hypercall requires zero host > >> side config, and zero guest side config, which IMHO is what we need for > >> this feature. > > > > If it was this one feature, yes. But we keep getting more and more > > features like that and we bloat the hypervisor. There's a reason we > > have a host-to-guest channel, we should use it. > > > > I donot know how to use virtio-serial. > > I start vm like this: > qemu ...\ > -device virtio-serial \ > -chardev socket,path=/tmp/foo,server,nowait,id=foo \ > -device virtserialport,chardev=foo,name=port1 ... This is sufficient. On the host, you can open /tmp/foo using a custom program or nc (nc -U /tmp/foo). On the guest, you can just open /dev/virtio-ports/port1 and read/write into it. See the following links for more details. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/VirtioSerial#How_To_Test http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Virtio-serial_API > You said that there are too many channels. Does it mean /tmp/foo is a channel? You can have several such -device virtserialport. The -device part describes what the guest will see. The -chardev part ties that to the host-side part of the channel. /tmp/foo is the host end-point for the channel, in the example above, and /dev/virtio-ports/port1 is the guest-side end-point. Amit