----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Polednik" <mpoledni(a)redhat.com>
To: devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:26:17 PM
Subject: [ovirt-devel] [vdsm] Infrastructure design for node (host) devices
Hello,
I'm actively working on getting host device passthrough (pci, usb and scsi)
exposed in VDSM, but I've encountered growing complexity of this feature.
The devices are currently created in the same manner as virtual devices and
their reporting is done via hostDevices list in getCaps. As I implemented
usb and scsi devices, the size of this list grew almost twice - and that is
on a laptop.
There should be a separate verb with ability to filter by type.
Similar problem is with the devices themselves, they are closely tied to host
and currently, engine would have to keep their mapping to VMs, reattach back
loose devices and handle all of this in case of migration.
Migration sound very
complicated, especially at the phase where the VM actually
starts running on the target host. The hardware state is completely different
but the guest OS wouldn't have any idea that happened.
So detaching before migration and than reattaching on the destination is a must
but that could cause issues in the guest. I'd imaging that this would be an issue
when hibernating on one host and waking up on another.
I would like to hear your opinion on building something like host device pool
in VDSM. The pool would be populated and periodically updated (to handle
hot(un)plugs) and VMs/engine could query it for free/assigned/possibly
problematic
devices (which could be reattached by the pool). This has added benefit of
requiring fewer libvirt calls, but a bit more complexity and possibly one
thread.
The persistence of the pool on VDSM restart could be kept in config or
constructed
from XML.
I'd much rather VDSM not cache state unless this is absolutely
necessary.
This sounds like something that doesn't need to be queried every 3 seconds
so it's best if we just get to ask libvirt.
I do wonder how that kind of thing can be configured in the VM creation
phase as you would sometimes want to just specify a type of device and
sometimes specify a specific one. Also, I'd assume there will be a
fallback policy stating if the VM should run if said resource is unavailable.
I'd need new API verbs to allow engine to communicate with the pool,
possibly leaving caps as they are and engine could detect the presence of
newer
vdsm by presence of these API verbs.
Again, I think that getting a list of devices
filterable by kind\type might
be best than a real pool. We might want to return if a device is in use
(could also be in use by the host operating system and not just VMs)
The vmCreate call would remain almost
the
same, only with the addition of new device for VMs (where the detach and
tracking
routine would be communicated with the pool).
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel