On 20.10.21 12:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.10.2021 10:04, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 11:48:33AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 15.10.2021 11:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.09.2021 10:21, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
>>>>> +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
>>>>> @@ -87,14 +87,22 @@ struct xen_domctl_createdomain {
>>>>>       /*
>>>>>        * Various domain limits, which impact the quantity of resources
>>>>>        * (global mapping space, xenheap, etc) a guest may consume.  For
>>>>> -     * max_grant_frames and max_maptrack_frames, < 0 means "use the
>>>>> -     * default maximum value in the hypervisor".
>>>>> +     * max_grant_frames, max_maptrack_frames and max_gnttab_version < 0
>>>>> +     * means "use the default maximum value in the hypervisor".
>>>>>        */
>>>>>       uint32_t max_vcpus;
>>>>>       uint32_t max_evtchn_port;
>>>>>       int32_t max_grant_frames;
>>>>>       int32_t max_maptrack_frames;
>>>>>   
>>>>> +/* Grant version, use low 4 bits. */
>>>>> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_GRANT_version_mask    0xf
>>>>> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_GRANT_version_default 0xf
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define XEN_DOMCTLGRANT_MAX XEN_DOMCTL_GRANT_version_mask
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    uint32_t grant_opts;
>>>>
>>>> As it now seems unlikely that this will make 4.16, please don't forget
>>>> to bump the interface version for 4.17. With that and preferably with
>>>> the nit above addressed, hypervisor parts:
>>>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>>
>>> Actually no, I'm afraid there is an issue with migration: If the tool
>>> stack remembers the "use default" setting and hands this to the new
>>> host, that host's default may be different from the source host's. It
>>> is the effective max-version that needs passing on in this case, which
>>> in turn requires a means to obtain the value.
>>
>> Hm, my thinking was that the admin (or a higer level orchestration
>> tool) would already have performed the necessary adjustments to assert
>> the environments are compatible.
> 
> I don't think we can rely on this in the hypervisor. We may take this
> as a prereq for proper working, but I think we ought to detect
> violations and report errors in such a case.
> 
>> This problem already exist today where you can migrate a VM from a
>> host having the max default grant version to one having
>> gnttab=max-ver:1 without complains.
> 
> Are you sure about "without complaints"? What would a guest do if it
> expects to be able to use v2, since it was able to on the prior host?

A Linux guest should "just work". On resume it is setting up the grant
interface again like on boot (in fact there is one difference: the
number of grant frames is kept from before suspending).

Guest transparent migration wouldn't work in such a case, and I have no
idea how other OS's will react.


Juergen