Re: [PATCH v15 10/11] qapi/s390x/cpu topology: CPU_POLARITY_CHANGE qapi event

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 01:12:17PM +0100, Nina Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-02-09 at 10:04 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 06:35:39PM +0100, Nina Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-02-01 at 14:20 +0100, Pierre Morel wrote:
> > > > When the guest asks to change the polarity this change
> > > > is forwarded to the admin using QAPI.
> > > > The admin is supposed to take according decisions concerning
> > > > CPU provisioning.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  qapi/machine-target.json | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  hw/s390x/cpu-topology.c  |  2 ++
> > > >  2 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/qapi/machine-target.json b/qapi/machine-target.json
> > > > index 58df0f5061..5883c3b020 100644
> > > > --- a/qapi/machine-target.json
> > > > +++ b/qapi/machine-target.json
> > > > @@ -371,3 +371,33 @@
> > > >    },
> > > >    'if': { 'all': [ 'TARGET_S390X', 'CONFIG_KVM' ] }
> > > >  }
> > > > +
> > > > +##
> > > > +# @CPU_POLARITY_CHANGE:
> > > > +#
> > > > +# Emitted when the guest asks to change the polarity.
> > > > +#
> > > > +# @polarity: polarity specified by the guest
> > > > +#
> > > > +# The guest can tell the host (via the PTF instruction) whether the
> > > > +# CPUs should be provisioned using horizontal or vertical polarity.
> > > > +#
> > > > +# On horizontal polarity the host is expected to provision all vCPUs
> > > > +# equally.
> > > > +# On vertical polarity the host can provision each vCPU differently.
> > > > +# The guest will get information on the details of the provisioning
> > > > +# the next time it uses the STSI(15) instruction.
> > > > +#
> > > > +# Since: 8.0
> > > > +#
> > > > +# Example:
> > > > +#
> > > > +# <- { "event": "CPU_POLARITY_CHANGE",
> > > > +#      "data": { "polarity": 0 },
> > > > +#      "timestamp": { "seconds": 1401385907, "microseconds": 422329 } }
> > > > +#
> > > > +##
> > > > +{ 'event': 'CPU_POLARITY_CHANGE',
> > > > +  'data': { 'polarity': 'int' },
> > > > +   'if': { 'all': [ 'TARGET_S390X', 'CONFIG_KVM'] }
> > > 
> > > I wonder if you should depend on CONFIG_KVM or not. If tcg gets topology
> > > support it will use the same event and right now it would just never be emitted.
> > > On the other hand it's more conservative this way.
> > > 
> > > I also wonder if you should add 'feature' : [ 'unstable' ].
> > > On the upside, it would mark the event as unstable, but I don't know what the
> > > consequences are exactly.
> > 
> > The intention of this flag is to allow mgmt apps to make a usage policy
> > decision.
> > 
> > Libvirt's policy is that we'll never use features marked unstable.
> 
> Does it enforce that, e.g via compat policies?

The policy is applied at time of code review, in that we'll not
merge patches that use features marked unstable.

> If so, I assume there is some way to allow use of unstable features in libvirt for development?
> If for example you're prototyping a new mgmt feature that uses unstable commands.

You can prototype usage in libvirt in a fork of course, but we
won't take patches into the libvirt upstream repo.

Alternatively in some cases the the libvirt QMP passthrough can
be used for experiemnts (eg virsh qemu-monitor-command ) in a
non-production envionrment.

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|