Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 2/4] ppc: add CPU IRQ state to PPC VMStateDescription

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3061 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 07:13:09PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:44:54 +0100
> Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On 13/09/17 07:02, David Gibson wrote:
> > 
> > >>> Alexey - do you recall from your analysis why these fields were no
> > >>> longer deemed necessary, and how your TCG tests were configured?  
> > >>
> > >> I most certainly did not do analysis (my bad. sorry) - I took the patch
> > >> from David as he left the team, fixed to compile and pushed away. I am also
> > >> very suspicions we did not try migrating TCG or anything but pseries. My
> > >> guest that things did not break (if they did not which I am not sure about,
> > >> for the TCG case) because the interrupt controller (XICS) or the
> > >> pseries-guest took care of resending an interrupt which does not seem to be
> > >> the case for mac99.  
> > > 
> > > Right, that's probably true.  The main point, though, is that these
> > > fields were dropped a *long* time ago, when migration was barely
> > > working to begin with.  In particular I'm pretty sure most of the
> > > non-pseries platforms were already pretty broken for migration
> > > (amongst other things).
> > > 
> > > Polishing the mac platforms up to working again, including migration,
> > > is a reasonable goal.  But it can't be at the expense of pseries,
> > > which is already working, used in production, and much better tested
> > > than mac99 or g3beige ever were.  
> > 
> > Oh I completely agree since I'm well aware pseries likely has more users
> > than the Mac machines - my question was directed more about why we
> > support backwards migration.
> > 
> 
> Downstream support backward migration because end users/customers ask for it
> for maximum flexibility when it comes to move workloads around different systems
> with different QEMU versions. This is fairly usual in data centers with many
> systems.

One specific case where this matters is if you want to update the qemu
version on an entire cluster of hosts.  Management layers like
oVirt/RHV allow you to do that without disrupting guests by migrating
them off each host, one by one, allowing you to remove it from the
cluster, update and then reinsert after which guests may be migrated
onto it again.

But that process could obviously take a fair while for a big cluster;
days or even weeks.   In the meantime you have a cluster with mixed
qemu versions, and since oVirt/RHV/whatever will also migrate guests
around the cluster to load balance, that means the possibility of a
backwards migration.

> As others already said, breaking things upstream may turn downstream work
> into a nightmare (and FWIW, most of the people working on ppc are also
> involved in downstream work).

Right.  And I even used to work as a RHV support tech too :).

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]