Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN][RFC PATCH 12/15] xl: Add interface to handle multiple device models

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 13:06 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> >> index 413a1a6..7e48817 100644
> >> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> >> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> >> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ libxl_domain_type = Enumeration("domain_type", [
> >>   libxl_device_model_version = Enumeration("device_model_version", [
> >>       (1, "QEMU_XEN_TRADITIONAL"), # Historical qemu-xen device model 
> >> (qemu-dm)
> >>       (2, "QEMU_XEN"),             # Upstream based qemu-xen device model
> >> +    (3, "MULTIPLE_QEMU_XEN"),    # Handle multiple dm
> >>      
> > Isn't this implicit in the provision or otherwise of num_dms?
> >    
> Sorry but I don't understand the question.

What I mean is can't you tell that the user wants multiple qemus from
the fact that domain_config.num_dms is non-zero (or >1, whichever it
is)?

> > What are name and path? I guess path is something to do with xenstore
> > but isn't that also internal to the libxl<->dm interface not something
> > the caller of libxl need be aware of?
> >    
> The path is the binary path

Are these supposed to supersede libxl_domain_build_info.device_model ?

> and the name is just a string append to the log filename.

This could be internal to libxl I expect.

> > I'm not sure what syntax "pcis", "mmios" and "pios" are going to have
> > but I expect that this would be better represent as actual
> > datastructures rather than encoding it as a string.
> >
> > How are toolstack supposed to know the values for e.g. pcis?
> >    
> For the moment pcis are describe as bdf for instance: 00:01.1
> and mmios/pios as range (0x10-0x20 or just 0x19).

And how does the toolstack know what values to use? How does it decide
that BDF 00:01.1 is something it wants to move into a different DM?

> > All in all this seems like a very raw/low-level interface. Can libxl not
> > expose something a bit more meaningful to toolstack authors? For example
> > if we consider emulated disk controllers then perhaps the options are
> >        * Handled by the "primary" dm
> >        * Handled by a single disaggregated dm
> >        * Handled by multiple disaggregated dm's (one per disk controller)
> > Similarly for other classes or emulated device. Or maybe this should be
> > a flag on those actual devices (e.g. in libxl_device_FOO)?
> >    
> 
> I have not really ideas about that. The first solution that comes
> in my mind is to bind each device with the device model name.
> 
> But in this case, we need to modify QEMU to launch only a subset
> of hardware and find a way to said which QEMU will emulate the
> "basic" hardware (keyboard, mouse, piix, ...).
> Moreover, who will allocate the bdf ? The toolstack ?

I don't know. It's (currently) not the toolstack AFAIK, I guess it is
either the lower level libraries (libxl, libxc) or the device model
itself.

I think this needs figuring out before we can decide what a sensible
libxl interface for for describing which device is emulated by which dm
looks like.

What I want to avoid is the situation where there is something deep in
the bowels of Xen which defines (or even hardcodes) the property that
BDF X:Y.Z corresponds the some device or other and then require that the
upper level tool stack (or, worse, the user) then has to encode that
magic knowledge as a string in the configuration.

> >> +
> >>   # Instances of libxl_file_reference contained in this struct which
> >>   # have been mapped (with libxl_file_reference_map) will be unmapped
> >>   # by libxl_domain_build/restore. If either of these are never called
> >> @@ -289,6 +299,7 @@ libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain_build_info",[
> >>                                          ("usbdevice",        string),
> >>                                          ("soundhw",          string),
> >>                                          ("xen_platform_pci", 
> >> libxl_defbool),
> >> +                                       ("max_servers",     integer),
> >>      
> > As a toolstack author how do I decide what number to use here?
> >    
> The max_servers variables is used to compute the additionnal special pages.
> So the max_servers indicates the maximum servers that we want to spawn.

We already know this from num_dms, don't we?

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel