On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:52:10 +0000
Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 01:26:32PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 1/17/22 16:17, Mark Kanda wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree except that I think this and StatsResults should be unions,
> > > > even if it means running multiple query-stats commands.
> > >
> > > IIUC, making StatsResults a union implies the filter is a required
> > > argument (currently it is optional - omitting it dumps all VM and VCPU
> > > stats). Just to confirm - we want the filter to be required?
> >
> > Yeah, I think at least the "kind" (vcpu, vm, perhaps in the future block or
> > net) should be mandatory. If the caller doesn't know of a "kind", chances
> > are it won't be able to understand what object the stats refer to, for
> > example the vcpu "id" here:
> >
> > { 'union': 'StatsResults',
> > 'base': { 'target': 'StatsTarget', stats: ['StatsResultsEntry'] },
> > 'discriminator': 'target',
> > 'data': { 'vcpu': ['id': 'int'] }
> > }
> >
> > (which is another different between Daniel's proposal and mine; his just
> > placed all vcpus into an array with no explicit id, if I understand
> > correctly).
>
> An explicit ID isn't strictly required, since the caller can assume
> the results are ordered on CPU ID, so even if they gave a request
> for a sparse subset of CPUs, the results can be interpreted. None
> the less having a vCPU id included is more friendly, so worth
> having.
and what exactly this CPU ID is,
may QOM path pointing to VCPU instance would be better?
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
