Re: [net-next 1/2] xen-netback: add module parameter to disable ctrl-ring

["Hsu, Chiahao" <andyhsu@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Leon Romanovsky 於 2021/3/22 08:13 寫道:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
> links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
> content is safe.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:01:17AM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > On 22.03.21 07:48, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 06:58:34AM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > > > On 22.03.21 06:39, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 06:54:52PM +0100, Hsu, Chiahao wrote:
> > > > > <...>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Typically there should be one VM running netback on each host,
> > > > > > > > and having control over what interfaces or features it exposes is also
> > > > > > > > important for stability.
> > > > > > > > How about we create a 'feature flags' modparam, each bits is specified for
> > > > > > > > different new features?
> > > > > > > At the end, it will be more granular module parameter that user still
> > > > > > > will need to guess.
> > > > > > I believe users always need to know any parameter or any tool's flag before
> > > > > > they use it.
> > > > > > For example, before user try to set/clear this ctrl_ring_enabled, they
> > > > > > should already have basic knowledge about this feature,
> > > > > > or else they shouldn't use it (the default value is same as before), and
> > > > > > that's also why we use the 'ctrl_ring_enabled' as parameter name.
> > > > > It solves only forward migration flow. Move from machine A with no
> > > > > option X to machine B with option X. It doesn't work for backward
> > > > > flow. Move from machine B to A back will probably break.
> > > > >
> > > > > In your flow, you want that users will set all module parameters for
> > > > > every upgrade and keep those parameters differently per-version.
> > > > I think the flag should be a per guest config item. Adding this item to
> > > > the backend Xenstore nodes for netback to consume it should be rather
> > > > easy.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this would need a change in Xen tools, too, but it is the most
> > > > flexible way to handle it. And in case of migration the information
> > > > would be just migrated to the new host with the guest's config data.
> > > Yes, it will overcome global nature of module parameters, but how does
> > > it solve backward compatibility concern?
> > When creating a guest on A the (unknown) feature will not be set to
> > any value in the guest's config data. A migration stream not having any
> > value for that feature on B should set it to "false".
> >
> > When creating a guest on B it will either have the feature value set
> > explicitly in the guest config (either true or false), or it will get
> > the server's default (this value should be configurable in a global
> > config file, default for that global value would be "true").
> >
> > So with the guest created on B with feature specified as "false" (either
> > for this guest only, or per global config), it will be migratable to
> > machine A without problem. Migrating it back to B would work the same
> > way as above. Trying to migrate a guest with feature set to "true" to
> > B would not work, but this would be the host admin's fault due to not
> > configuring the guest correctly.
so the expected changes would be

1. remove feature-ctrl-ring & feature-dynamic-multicast-control from 
netback_probe( )
2. consume the backend Xenstore nodes in connect( ) to see if Xen tools 
set nodes(true/false) or not(unknown)
Thanks.

Andy
> As long as all new features are disabled by default, it will be ok.
>
> Thanks
>
> > Juergen