Re: [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] [RFC 00/28] s390x CPU models: exposing features

[David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 18:22:30 -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:09:49PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > [...]  
> > > > 1) "query-cpu-model-expansion model=host" vs "query-host-cpu":
> > > > 
> > > > I still don't think we want to set in stone that "the result the
> > > > guest sees when using -cpu host" is always the same as "what the
> > > > host supports running".
> > > > 
> > > > For example: let's assume a given architecture have two features
> > > > (A and B) that are both supported by the host but can never be
> > > > enabled together. For actual "-cpu host" usage, QEMU would have
> > > > to choose between enabling A and B. For querying host
> > > > capabilities, we still want to let management software know that
> > > > either A or B are supported.  
> > > 
> > > What libvirt is really interested in is the guest CPU which would be
> > > used with -cpu host. This is actually what I thought query-host-cpu was
> > > all about. Perhaps because there's no difference for x86.  
> > 
> > In that case, I think it makes sense to just extend
> > query-cpu-definitions or use "query-cpu-model-expansion
> > model=host" instead of a query-host-cpu command.
> > 
> > Probably query-cpu-model-expansion is better than just extending
> > query-cpu-definitions, because it would allow the expansion of
> > extra CPU options, like "host,migratable=off".  
> 
> Yeah, this would be even better.
> 
> Jirka
> 

Please be aware that we don't have anything like that on s390x, but
I prepared for that requirement by being able to tell
query-cpu-model-expansion how to expand (full, migratable, stable).
Actually full and migratable looks the same on s390x.

The plan for us is to rely on "stable" most of the time, full and migratable
might be what you're looking for.

David