From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33263) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fTntN-0006LL-WA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:31:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fTntK-0006LN-Sz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:31:50 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:46700 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fTntK-0006LJ-MT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:31:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 15:31:43 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20180615152926-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20180611202207-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20180612051432-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <23fc4aa4-ec41-d6e2-3354-10cbfc13b7ec@intel.com> <20180612142557-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20180614120231.0a72bd5f.cohuck@redhat.com> <20180615052743-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20180615113242.799974f6.cohuck@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180615113242.799974f6.cohuck@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] qemu: Introduce VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY feature bit to virtio_net List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Siwei Liu , "Samudrala, Sridhar" , Alexander Duyck , virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, aaron.f.brown@intel.com, Jiri Pirko , Jakub Kicinski , Netdev , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:32:42AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 05:34:24 +0300 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:02:31PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > > > I am not all that familiar with how Qemu manages network devices. If we can > > > > > do all the > > > > > required management of the primary/standby devices within Qemu, that is > > > > > definitely a better > > > > > approach without upper layer involvement. > > > > > > > > Right. I would imagine in the extreme case the upper layer doesn't > > > > have to be involved at all if QEMU manages all hot plug/unplug logic. > > > > The management tool can supply passthrough device and virtio with the > > > > same group UUID, QEMU auto-manages the presence of the primary, and > > > > hot plug the device as needed before or after the migration. > > > > > > I do not really see how you can manage that kind of stuff in QEMU only. > > > > So right now failover is limited to pci passthrough devices only. > > The idea is to realize the vfio device but not expose it > > to guest. Have a separate command to expose it to guest. > > Hotunplug would also hide it from guest but not unrealize it. > > So, this would not be real hot(un)plug, but 'hide it from the guest', > right? The concept of "we have it realized in QEMU, but the guest can't > discover and use it" should be translatable to non-pci as well (at > least for ccw). > > > > > This will help ensure that e.g. on migration failure we can > > re-expose the device without risk of running out of resources. > > Makes sense. > > Should that 'hidden' state be visible/settable from outside as well > (e.g. via a property)? I guess yes, so that management software has a > chance to see whether a device is visible. Might be handy for debug, but note that since QEMU manages this state it's transient: can change at any time, so it's kind of hard for management to rely on it. > Settable may be useful if we > find another use case for hiding realized devices.