[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Initial support for machine creation via QMP
From: |
Igor Mammedov |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Initial support for machine creation via QMP |
Date: |
Mon, 24 May 2021 20:27:50 +0200 |
On Fri, 21 May 2021 18:57:36 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 21/05/21 16:06, Mirela Grujic wrote:
> >>
> >> PHASE_NO_MACHINE
> >> -> machine-set -> PHASE_MACHINE_CREATED ->
> >> -> accel-set -> PHASE_ACCEL_CREATED -> PHASE_MACHINE_INITIALIZED ->
> >
> >
> > My understanding is that an equivalent of previously supported
> > 'preconfig' state is PHASE_ACCEL_CREATED, from the perspective of the
> > QMP configuration that Igor implemented. In other words, I believe that
> > when -preconfig CLI option was passed, QEMU was waiting for the QMP
> > configuration in PHASE_ACCEL_CREATED phase. Now, if accel-set advances
> > the machine directly to PHASE_MACHINE_INITIALIZED, there will be no
> > chance to configure what Igor did with -preconfig.
>
> Right, that was only NUMA. I have to check, but I think it can be moved
> to PHASE_MACHINE_CREATED.
Dependency for NUMA were:
1: -smp/-cpu being parsed before set_numa_options QMP command is called
it's necessary to for machine being able to provide topology for
given -smp combination.
-cpu is not must have dependency (currently), it was just conveniently
available when building topology in possible_cpu_arch_ids(), setting
cpu-type there could be deffered to the later time (actual user for
CPU type is QMP command query-hotpluggable-cpus, so that user could know
what cpu type and what properties to use with device_add at hot-add
time).
2: memory backends depended on accel (TCG)
(I think, Paolo has removed that dependency)
> Apart from that, if we add a third command for the CPU model, that third
> command would run from PHASE_ACCEL_CREATED so the pre-existing preconfig
> state would be accessible.
>
> Paolo
>
> > Is this something you don't want to support anymore, or it can be
> > configured in another way? Or is this something that we haven't thought
> > of yet, but we should?
>
>
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Initial support for machine creation via QMP, (continued)
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Initial support for machine creation via QMP, Markus Armbruster, 2021/05/21
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Initial support for machine creation via QMP, Mirela Grujic, 2021/05/21