[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] s390: diagnose 318 info reset and migration

From: David Hildenbrand
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] s390: diagnose 318 info reset and migration support
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 11:20:41 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1

On 14.05.19 11:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 14.05.19 10:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 14.05.19 10:49, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 May 2019 10:37:32 +0200
>>> Christian Borntraeger <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> On 14.05.19 09:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>> But that can be tested using the runability information if I am not 
>>>>>>>> wrong.  
>>>>>>> You mean the cpu level information, right?  
>>>>> Yes, query-cpu-definition includes for each model runability information
>>>>> via "unavailable-features" (valid under the started QEMU machine).
>>>>>>>>> and others that we have today.
>>>>>>>>> So yes, I think this would be acceptable.    
>>>>>>>> I guess it is acceptable yes. I doubt anybody uses that many CPUs in
>>>>>>>> production either way. But you never know.  
>>>>>>> I think that using that many cpus is a more uncommon setup, but I still
>>>>>>> think that having to wait for actual failure  
>>>>>> That can happen all the time today. You can easily say z14 in the xml 
>>>>>> when 
>>>>>> on a zEC12. Only at startup you get the error. The question is really:  
>>>>> "-smp 248 -cpu host" will no longer work, while e.g. "-smp 248 -cpu z12"
>>>>> will work. Actually, even "-smp 248" will no longer work on affected
>>>>> machines.
>>>>> That is why wonder if it is better to disable the feature and print a
>>>>> warning. Similar to CMMA, where want want to tolerate when CMMA is not
>>>>> possible in the current environment (huge pages).
>>>>> "Diag318 will not be enabled because it is not compatible with more than
>>>>> 240 CPUs".
>>>>> However, I still think that implementing support for more than one SCLP
>>>>> response page is the best solution. Guests will need adaptions for > 240
>>>>> CPUs with Diag318, but who cares? Existing setups will continue to work.
>>>>> Implementing that SCLP thingy will avoid any warnings and any errors. It
>>>>> just works from the QEMU perspective.
>>>>> Is implementing this realistic?  
>>>> Yes it is but it will take time. I will try to get this rolling. To make
>>>> progress on the diag318 thing, can we error on startup now and simply
>>>> remove that check when when have implemented a larger sccb? If we would
>>>> now do all kinds of "change the max number games" would be harder to "fix".
>>> So, the idea right now is:
>>> - fail to start if you try to specify a diag318 device and more than
>>>   240 cpus (do we need a knob to turn off the device?)
>>> - in the future, support more than one SCLP response page
>>> I'm getting a bit lost in the discussion; but the above sounds
>>> reasonable to me.
>> We can
>> 1. Fail to start with #cpus > 240 when diag318=on
>> 2. Remove the error once we support more than one SCLP response page
>> Or
>> 1. Allow to start with #cpus > 240 when diag318=on, but indicate only
>>    240 CPUs via SCLP
>> 2. Print a warning
>> 3. Remove the restriction and the warning once we support more than one
>>    SCLP response page
>> While I prefer the second approach (similar to defining zPCI devices
>> without zpci=on), I could also live with the first approach.
> I prefer approach 1.

Isn't approach #2 what we discussed (limiting sclp, but of course to 247
CPUs), but with an additional warning? I'm confused.



David / dhildenb

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]