[RFC 0/3] Improve module accelerator error message

Jose R. Ziviani posted 3 patches 2 years, 10 months ago
Failed in applying to current master (apply log)
There is a newer version of this series
include/qemu/module.h |  3 +++
meson.build           |  3 +++
qom/object.c          | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
util/module.c         | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
4 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
[RFC 0/3] Improve module accelerator error message
Posted by Jose R. Ziviani 2 years, 10 months ago
Hello!

I'm sending this as RFC because it's based on a patch still on
review[1], so I'd like to see if it makes sense.

Tt will improve the error message when an accelerator module could
not be loaded. Instead of the current assert error, a formated
message will be displayed.

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/list/?series=506379

Jose R. Ziviani (3):
  modules: Add CONFIG_TCG_MODULAR in config_host
  modules: Implement module_is_loaded function
  qom: Improve error message in module_object_class_by_name()

 include/qemu/module.h |  3 +++
 meson.build           |  3 +++
 qom/object.c          | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 util/module.c         | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
 4 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

-- 
2.32.0


QEMU modules improvements objective (Was: Re: [RFC 0/3] Improve module accelerator error message)
Posted by Claudio Fontana 2 years, 10 months ago
On 7/1/21 1:27 AM, Jose R. Ziviani wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> I'm sending this as RFC because it's based on a patch still on
> review[1], so I'd like to see if it makes sense.
> 
> Tt will improve the error message when an accelerator module could
> not be loaded. Instead of the current assert error, a formated
> message will be displayed.
> 
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/list/?series=506379
> 
> Jose R. Ziviani (3):
>   modules: Add CONFIG_TCG_MODULAR in config_host
>   modules: Implement module_is_loaded function
>   qom: Improve error message in module_object_class_by_name()
> 
>  include/qemu/module.h |  3 +++
>  meson.build           |  3 +++
>  qom/object.c          | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  util/module.c         | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  4 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 

Open question to all,

why don't we have/add the ability to configure

CONFIG_XXX=m

for all potentially modular pieces?

It should be possible to say, I want to build the storage plugins as modules, TCG I would like it built-in, and KVM as a module,
or any combination of these.

The most useful combination I see for virtualization use of qemu is with TCG as a module (M), KVM as built-in (Y), and various other optional pieces as modules (M).

Should this not be the vision? To me it looks that way.

Thanks,

Claudio

Re: QEMU modules improvements objective (Was: Re: [RFC 0/3] Improve module accelerator error message)
Posted by Gerd Hoffmann 2 years, 9 months ago
  Hi,

> Open question to all,
> 
> why don't we have/add the ability to configure
> 
> CONFIG_XXX=m
> 
> for all potentially modular pieces?
> 
> It should be possible to say, I want to build the storage plugins as modules, TCG I would like it built-in, and KVM as a module,
> or any combination of these.
>
> The most useful combination I see for virtualization use of qemu is with TCG as a module (M), KVM as built-in (Y), and various other optional pieces as modules (M).

Surely doable.  Comes with maintenance and testing cost though.

For example you'll get new kinds of dependencies: when building foo as
module stuff depending on foo must be built modular too (spice-core=m +
qxl=y doesn't work).

I see mainly two use cases:

  (1) distro builds.  Those would enable most features and also modules
      for fine-grained rpm/deb packaging.

  (2) builds for specific use cases.  Those would disable modules and
      just use CONFIG_FOO=n for things they don't need.

Being able to set CONFIG_FOO=y for features used in >90% of the use
cases (kvm, some virtio devices come to mind) might be useful for (1).
Distros do that with linux kernel builds too (Fedora kernel has
CONFIG_SATA_AHCI=y, CONFIG_USB_XHCI_PCI=y, ...).

But the question is: Are the benefits worth the effort?

take care,
  Gerd


Re: QEMU modules improvements objective (Was: Re: [RFC 0/3] Improve module accelerator error message)
Posted by Claudio Fontana 2 years, 9 months ago
On 7/21/21 12:35 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>   Hi,
> 
>> Open question to all,
>>
>> why don't we have/add the ability to configure
>>
>> CONFIG_XXX=m
>>
>> for all potentially modular pieces?
>>
>> It should be possible to say, I want to build the storage plugins as modules, TCG I would like it built-in, and KVM as a module,
>> or any combination of these.
>>
>> The most useful combination I see for virtualization use of qemu is with TCG as a module (M), KVM as built-in (Y), and various other optional pieces as modules (M).
> 
> Surely doable.  Comes with maintenance and testing cost though.
> 
> For example you'll get new kinds of dependencies: when building foo as
> module stuff depending on foo must be built modular too (spice-core=m +
> qxl=y doesn't work).
> 
> I see mainly two use cases:
> 
>   (1) distro builds.  Those would enable most features and also modules
>       for fine-grained rpm/deb packaging.
> 
>   (2) builds for specific use cases.  Those would disable modules and
>       just use CONFIG_FOO=n for things they don't need.
> 
> Being able to set CONFIG_FOO=y for features used in >90% of the use
> cases (kvm, some virtio devices come to mind) might be useful for (1).
> Distros do that with linux kernel builds too (Fedora kernel has
> CONFIG_SATA_AHCI=y, CONFIG_USB_XHCI_PCI=y, ...).
> 
> But the question is: Are the benefits worth the effort?
> 
> take care,
>   Gerd
> 

I generally agree with your use cases as we see it right now from a distro perspective, I suspect there are more,
especially thinking of modeling, testing/builds etc on the TCG side of things.

I think that eventually we will end up there anyway due to the requirements being so vastly different for all possible uses of QEMU.

Doing a proper design of this will allow I think to come to the right conclusions on how to correctly check for accelerators etc,
without creating a one-off solution for each single feature.

KConfig should probably be driving this from day 1 right?

Yeah, it's tough, but I think we would otherwise just drive circles around this, implement a lot of provisional stuff,
and still end up there sooner or later in my opinion.

Ciao,

CLaudio




Re: QEMU modules improvements objective (Was: Re: [RFC 0/3] Improve module accelerator error message)
Posted by Claudio Fontana 2 years, 9 months ago
On 7/21/21 12:47 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> On 7/21/21 12:35 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>   Hi,
>>
>>> Open question to all,
>>>
>>> why don't we have/add the ability to configure
>>>
>>> CONFIG_XXX=m
>>>
>>> for all potentially modular pieces?
>>>
>>> It should be possible to say, I want to build the storage plugins as modules, TCG I would like it built-in, and KVM as a module,
>>> or any combination of these.
>>>
>>> The most useful combination I see for virtualization use of qemu is with TCG as a module (M), KVM as built-in (Y), and various other optional pieces as modules (M).
>>
>> Surely doable.  Comes with maintenance and testing cost though.
>>
>> For example you'll get new kinds of dependencies: when building foo as
>> module stuff depending on foo must be built modular too (spice-core=m +
>> qxl=y doesn't work).
>>
>> I see mainly two use cases:
>>
>>   (1) distro builds.  Those would enable most features and also modules
>>       for fine-grained rpm/deb packaging.
>>
>>   (2) builds for specific use cases.  Those would disable modules and
>>       just use CONFIG_FOO=n for things they don't need.
>>
>> Being able to set CONFIG_FOO=y for features used in >90% of the use
>> cases (kvm, some virtio devices come to mind) might be useful for (1).
>> Distros do that with linux kernel builds too (Fedora kernel has
>> CONFIG_SATA_AHCI=y, CONFIG_USB_XHCI_PCI=y, ...).
>>
>> But the question is: Are the benefits worth the effort?
>>
>> take care,
>>   Gerd
>>
> 
> I generally agree with your use cases as we see it right now from a distro perspective, I suspect there are more,
> especially thinking of modeling, testing/builds etc on the TCG side of things.
> 
> I think that eventually we will end up there anyway due to the requirements being so vastly different for all possible uses of QEMU.
> 
> Doing a proper design of this will allow I think to come to the right conclusions on how to correctly check for accelerators etc,
> without creating a one-off solution for each single feature.
> 
> KConfig should probably be driving this from day 1 right?


Before this, though, the KConfig stuff should be all-ok for ARM and possibly other archs, I am not sure where we are there..

> 
> Yeah, it's tough, but I think we would otherwise just drive circles around this, implement a lot of provisional stuff,
> and still end up there sooner or later in my opinion.
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> CLaudio