Re: [net-next 1/2] xen-netback: add module parameter to disable ctrl-ring

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:01:17AM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 22.03.21 07:48, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 06:58:34AM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > > On 22.03.21 06:39, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 06:54:52PM +0100, Hsu, Chiahao wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > <...>
> > > > 
> > > > > > > Typically there should be one VM running netback on each host,
> > > > > > > and having control over what interfaces or features it exposes is also
> > > > > > > important for stability.
> > > > > > > How about we create a 'feature flags' modparam, each bits is specified for
> > > > > > > different new features?
> > > > > > At the end, it will be more granular module parameter that user still
> > > > > > will need to guess.
> > > > > I believe users always need to know any parameter or any tool's flag before
> > > > > they use it.
> > > > > For example, before user try to set/clear this ctrl_ring_enabled, they
> > > > > should already have basic knowledge about this feature,
> > > > > or else they shouldn't use it (the default value is same as before), and
> > > > > that's also why we use the 'ctrl_ring_enabled' as parameter name.
> > > > 
> > > > It solves only forward migration flow. Move from machine A with no
> > > > option X to machine B with option X. It doesn't work for backward
> > > > flow. Move from machine B to A back will probably break.
> > > > 
> > > > In your flow, you want that users will set all module parameters for
> > > > every upgrade and keep those parameters differently per-version.
> > > 
> > > I think the flag should be a per guest config item. Adding this item to
> > > the backend Xenstore nodes for netback to consume it should be rather
> > > easy.
> > > 
> > > Yes, this would need a change in Xen tools, too, but it is the most
> > > flexible way to handle it. And in case of migration the information
> > > would be just migrated to the new host with the guest's config data.
> > 
> > Yes, it will overcome global nature of module parameters, but how does
> > it solve backward compatibility concern?
> 
> When creating a guest on A the (unknown) feature will not be set to
> any value in the guest's config data. A migration stream not having any
> value for that feature on B should set it to "false".
> 
> When creating a guest on B it will either have the feature value set
> explicitly in the guest config (either true or false), or it will get
> the server's default (this value should be configurable in a global
> config file, default for that global value would be "true").
> 
> So with the guest created on B with feature specified as "false" (either
> for this guest only, or per global config), it will be migratable to
> machine A without problem. Migrating it back to B would work the same
> way as above. Trying to migrate a guest with feature set to "true" to
> B would not work, but this would be the host admin's fault due to not
> configuring the guest correctly.

As long as all new features are disabled by default, it will be ok.

Thanks

> 
> 
> Juergen