On 02/23/2011 06:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Qemu does keep state. Currently only images, but in theory also the
on-board NVRAM.
Yeah, this is a good example of an area where a "stateful config file"
would be useful. I like the idea of storing this sort of thing in a
text file with a config structure because a user certainly wants to be
able to specify the boot order. Being able to tweak this kind of
stuff adds a lot of interesting capabilities.
My preference would be a binary file (a disk image, in fact), with a
tool to play with the known fields. It allows a management tool to
reuse its storage stack.
QEMU uses the state database to store information that is created
dynamically. For instance, devices added through device_add. A
device added via -device wouldn't necessary get added to the state
database.
Practically speaking, it let's you invoke QEMU with a fixed command
line, while still using the monitor to make changes that would
otherwise require the command line being updated.
Then the invoker quickly loses track of what the actual state is. It
can't just remember which commands it issued (presumably in response
to the user updating user visible state). It has to parse the
stateful config file qemu outputs.
Well specifically, it has to ask QEMU and QEMU can tell it the current
state via a nice structured data format over QMP. It's a hell of a
lot easier than the management tool trying to do this outside of QEMU.
So, if qemu crashes, the management tool has to start it up to find out
what the current state is.
But at which points should it parse it?
I was thinking that we should post events whenever we change the
stateful config. That would let the management tool have a mechanism
for determining when settings have been changed. Of course, if the
management tool crashes, it should re-read at startup.
I don't think it's reasonable to have three different ways to
interact with qemu, all needed: the command line, reading and writing
the stateful config file, and the monitor. I'd rather push for
starting qemu with a blank guest and assembling (cold-plugging) all
the hardware via the monitor before starting the guest.
Yes. I view the command line as optional. To me, this is the ideal
interaction:
1) start qemu with an empty stateful config file
2) issue monitor commands to create all devices and backends
3) the stateful config file totally captures the state of all of the
issued QMP commands. The management tool can relaunch the guest just
by passing the stateful config file to QEMU.
4) when the management tool needs to "extract" a config file, it can
read the stateful config (through the monitor) and generate it's own
config.
5) the management tool should treat the stateful config file as more
or less opaque. It shouldn't be visible to end user.
In the non-managed case, users should interact directly with the
config file.
Doesn't the stateful non-config file becomes a failure point? It has to
be on shared and redundant storage?
To me, it seems a lot easier to require management to replay any
commands that hadn't been acknowledged (due to management failure), or
to query qemu as to its current state (if it is alive). Management
already needs stable, redundant config storage anyway (often a database).
Can you give more examples?
I think I demonstrated that hot-plug can be solved via the existing
interfaces.
Sure. CMOS settings right now are not persisted across reboot.
That is handled easily with an NVRAM disk image.
Guest initiated activities like IDE or PCI eject are tricky to persist
correctly within a management tool.
We could add events for all of this things but it's all racy since
events are posted. If we have a stateful config file, we can make all
of these things non-racy and post an event that the config has
changed. If there's a crash, the management tool can read the config
on startup to catch up on missed events.
If qemu crashes, these events are meaningless. If management crashes,
it has to query qemu for all state that it wants to keep track of via
events.
I think the nature of a posted event management interface is such that
we need a stateful config that persists across QEMU invocations.
I'm not convinced, and I think making qemu manage even more state
creates more problems.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
