Re: [Xen-devel] [libvirt] Question about hypervisor <features> that are not tristate

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:49:48AM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> On 01/06/2017 05:31 PM, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> 
> Adding xen-devel for a question below...
> 
> > Happy new year!
> > 
> > Nearly a year ago I reported an issue with the <hap> hypervisor feature on 
> > Xen
> > [1] and am now seeing a similar issue with the <pae> feature. Setting the
> > default value of pae changed between xend and libxl. When not specified, 
> > xend
> > would enable pae for HVM domains. Clients such as xm and the old libvirt 
> > driver
> > did not have to explicitly enable it. In libxl, the pae field within
> > libxl_domain_build_info is initialized to 0. Clients must enable pae, and 
> > indeed
> > xl will do so if pae=1 is not specified in the xl.cfg.
> > 
> > The xend behavior prevents libvirt from disabling pae, whereas the libxl 
> > behvior
> > causes a guest ABI change (config that worked with libvirt+xend doesn't with
> > libvirt+libxl). The libxl behavior also forces management software (e.g.
> > OpenStack nova) to add <pae> where it wasn't needed before.
> > 
> > To solve this problem for <hap>, it was changed it to a tristate [2], 
> > allowing
> > it to be turned off with explicit <hap state='off'/>, and on if not 
> > specified or
> > <hap/> or <hap state='on'/>. Should <pae> (and the remaining hypervisor 
> > features
> > that are not tristate) be converted to tristate similar to <hap>? 
> > Alternatively,
> > I could simply set pae=1 for all HVM domains in the libxl driver. Like the 
> > old
> > libvirt+xend behavior it couldn't be turned off, but I don't think there is 
> > a
> > practical use-case to do so. At least no one has complained over all the 
> > years
> > of libvirt+xend use.
> 
> Xen folks, what is your opinion of always enabling pae for HVM domains in
> the libvirt libxl driver? Is there a need these days to disable it?

No. I think it should be enabled all the time.
> 
> Jan had mentioned that some old, buggy guest OS's (Win 9x) might need it
> disabled, and perhaps some cases where it may be desirable to suppress a
> guest OS entering 64-bit mode. But in practice do you think it is necessary
> to expose this knob to users?

Um, Win 98? People use that? Microsoft doesn't even support that.

I would ignore such ancient OSes.
> 
> Thanks for your comments!
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> > [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-February/msg00197.html
> > [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-March/msg00001.html
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

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