Message-ID: <20180419080215-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:07:32 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Cc:     Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        si-wei liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] netdev: kernel-only IFF_HIDDEN
 netdevice

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:00:51PM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> On 4/18/2018 9:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:33:34PM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> > > On 4/17/2018 5:26 PM, Siwei Liu wrote:
> > > > I ran this with a few folks offline and gathered some good feedbacks
> > > > that I'd like to share thus revive the discussion.
> > > > 
> > > > First of all, as illustrated in the reply below, cloud service
> > > > providers require transparent live migration. Specifically, the main
> > > > target of our case is to support SR-IOV live migration via kernel
> > > > upgrade while keeping the userspace of old distros unmodified. If it's
> > > > because this use case is not appealing enough for the mainline to
> > > > adopt, I will shut up and not continue discussing, although
> > > > technically it's entirely possible (and there's precedent in other
> > > > implementation) to do so to benefit any cloud service providers.
> > > > 
> > > > If it's just the implementation of hiding netdev itself needs to be
> > > > improved, such as implementing it as attribute flag or adding linkdump
> > > > API, that's completely fine and we can look into that. However, the
> > > > specific issue needs to be undestood beforehand is to make transparent
> > > > SR-IOV to be able to take over the name (so inherit all the configs)
> > > > from the lower netdev, which needs some games with uevents and name
> > > > space reservation. So far I don't think it's been well discussed.
> > > > 
> > > > One thing in particular I'd like to point out is that the 3-netdev
> > > > model currently missed to address the core problem of live migration:
> > > > migration of hardware specific feature/state, for e.g. ethtool configs
> > > > and hardware offloading states. Only general network state (IP
> > > > address, gateway, for eg.) associated with the bypass interface can be
> > > > migrated. As a follow-up work, bypass driver can/should be enhanced to
> > > > save and apply those hardware specific configs before or after
> > > > migration as needed. The transparent 1-netdev model being proposed as
> > > > part of this patch series will be able to solve that problem naturally
> > > > by making all hardware specific configurations go through the central
> > > > bypass driver, such that hardware configurations can be replayed when
> > > > new VF or passthrough gets plugged back in. Although that
> > > > corresponding function hasn't been implemented today, I'd like to
> > > > refresh everyone's mind that is the core problem any live migration
> > > > proposal should have addressed.
> > > > 
> > > > If it would make things more clear to defer netdev hiding until all
> > > > functionalities regarding centralizing and replay are implemented,
> > > > we'd take advices like that and move on to implementing those features
> > > > as follow-up patches. Once all needed features get done, we'd resume
> > > > the work for hiding lower netdev at that point. Think it would be the
> > > > best to make everyone understand the big picture in advance before
> > > > going too far.
> > > I think we should get the 3-netdev model integrated and add any additional
> > > ndo_ops/ethool ops that we would like to support/migrate before looking into
> > > hiding the lower netdevs.
> > Once they are exposed, I don't think we'll be able to hide them -
> > they will be a kernel ABI.
> > 
> > Do you think everyone needs to hide the SRIOV device?
> > Or that only some users need this?
> 
> Hyper-V is currently supporting live migration without hiding the SR-IOV device. So i don't
> think it is a hard requirement.

OK, fine.

> And also,  as we don't yet have a consensus on how to hide
> the lower netdevs, we could make it as another feature bit to hide lower netdevs once
> we have an acceptable solution.

Guest/host interface isn't more flexible than the userspace/kernel
interface.  The feature bit you propose would say what exactly?
Hypervisor has no idea what guest kernel shows guest userspace.
Note that the backup flag doesn't tell guest kernel what to do,
it just tells guest that there is or will be a faster main device
connected to the same backend, so the backup should only be used
when main device is not present.

-- 
MST

Powered by blists - more mailing lists