| Message ID | 20240515141557.1277999-6-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix "virtio-gpu: fix scanout migration post-load" | expand |
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 06:15:56PM +0400, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> > > Commit dfcf74fa ("virtio-gpu: fix scanout migration post-load") broke > forward/backward version migration. Versioning of nested VMSD structures > is not straightforward, as the wire format doesn't have nested > structures versions. > > Use the previously introduced check_machine_version() function as a > field test to ensure proper saving/loading based on the machine version. > The VMSD.version is irrelevant now. > > Fixes: dfcf74fa ("virtio-gpu: fix scanout migration post-load") > Suggested-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> I don't get it. Our standard way to do it is: - add a property (begin name with x- so we don't commit to an API) - set from compat machinery - test property value in VMSTATE macros Big advantage is, it works well with any downstreams which pick any properties they like. Why is this not a good fit here? > --- > hw/display/virtio-gpu.c | 21 +++++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c b/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c > index ae831b6b3e..b2d8e5faeb 100644 > --- a/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c > +++ b/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ > #include "trace.h" > #include "sysemu/dma.h" > #include "sysemu/sysemu.h" > +#include "hw/boards.h" > #include "hw/virtio/virtio.h" > #include "migration/qemu-file-types.h" > #include "hw/virtio/virtio-gpu.h" > @@ -1166,10 +1167,14 @@ static void virtio_gpu_cursor_bh(void *opaque) > virtio_gpu_handle_cursor(&g->parent_obj.parent_obj, g->cursor_vq); > } > > +static bool machine_check_9_0(void *opaque, int version) > +{ > + return machine_check_version(9, 0); > +} > + > static const VMStateDescription vmstate_virtio_gpu_scanout = { > .name = "virtio-gpu-one-scanout", > - .version_id = 2, > - .minimum_version_id = 1, > + .version_id = 1, > .fields = (const VMStateField[]) { > VMSTATE_UINT32(resource_id, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), > VMSTATE_UINT32(width, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), > @@ -1181,12 +1186,12 @@ static const VMStateDescription vmstate_virtio_gpu_scanout = { > VMSTATE_UINT32(cursor.hot_y, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), > VMSTATE_UINT32(cursor.pos.x, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), > VMSTATE_UINT32(cursor.pos.y, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.format, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.bytes_pp, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.width, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.height, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.stride, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.offset, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.format, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.bytes_pp, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.width, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.height, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.stride, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.offset, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST() > }, > }; > -- > 2.41.0.28.gd7d8841f67
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 06:15:56PM +0400, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> > > Commit dfcf74fa ("virtio-gpu: fix scanout migration post-load") broke > forward/backward version migration. Versioning of nested VMSD structures > is not straightforward, as the wire format doesn't have nested > structures versions. > > Use the previously introduced check_machine_version() function as a > field test to ensure proper saving/loading based on the machine version. > The VMSD.version is irrelevant now. > > Fixes: dfcf74fa ("virtio-gpu: fix scanout migration post-load") > Suggested-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> > --- > hw/display/virtio-gpu.c | 21 +++++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c b/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c > index ae831b6b3e..b2d8e5faeb 100644 > --- a/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c > +++ b/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ > #include "trace.h" > #include "sysemu/dma.h" > #include "sysemu/sysemu.h" > +#include "hw/boards.h" > #include "hw/virtio/virtio.h" > #include "migration/qemu-file-types.h" > #include "hw/virtio/virtio-gpu.h" > @@ -1166,10 +1167,14 @@ static void virtio_gpu_cursor_bh(void *opaque) > virtio_gpu_handle_cursor(&g->parent_obj.parent_obj, g->cursor_vq); > } > > +static bool machine_check_9_0(void *opaque, int version) > +{ > + return machine_check_version(9, 0); > +} I think applying version number checks to decide machine type compatibility is a highly undesirable direction for QEMU to take. Machine type compatibility is a difficult problem, but one of the good aspects about our current solution is that it is clear what the differences are for each version. We can see all the compatibility properties/flags/values being set in one place, in the declaration of each machine's class. Sprinkling version number checks around the codebase in arbitrary files will harm visibility of what ABI is expressd by each machine, and thus is liable to increase the liklihood of mistakes. This will negatively impact downstream vendors cherry-picking patches to their stable branches, as the version number logic may have incorrect semantics. It will also create trouble for downstream vendors who define their own machines with distinct versioning from upstream, as there will be confusion over whether a version check is for the base QEMU version, or the downstream version, and such code added to the tree is less visible than the machine type definitions. Above all, I'm failing to see why there's a compelling reason for virtio_gpu to diverge from our long standing practice of adding a named property flag "virtio_scanout_vmstate_fix" on the machine class, and then setting it in machine types which need it. > + > static const VMStateDescription vmstate_virtio_gpu_scanout = { > .name = "virtio-gpu-one-scanout", > - .version_id = 2, > - .minimum_version_id = 1, > + .version_id = 1, > .fields = (const VMStateField[]) { > VMSTATE_UINT32(resource_id, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), > VMSTATE_UINT32(width, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), > @@ -1181,12 +1186,12 @@ static const VMStateDescription vmstate_virtio_gpu_scanout = { > VMSTATE_UINT32(cursor.hot_y, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), > VMSTATE_UINT32(cursor.pos.x, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), > VMSTATE_UINT32(cursor.pos.y, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.format, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.bytes_pp, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.width, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.height, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.stride, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.offset, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.format, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.bytes_pp, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.width, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.height, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.stride, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.offset, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), > VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST() > }, > }; > -- > 2.41.0.28.gd7d8841f67 > > With regards, Daniel
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:02:49PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 06:15:56PM +0400, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: > > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> > > > > Commit dfcf74fa ("virtio-gpu: fix scanout migration post-load") broke > > forward/backward version migration. Versioning of nested VMSD structures > > is not straightforward, as the wire format doesn't have nested > > structures versions. > > > > Use the previously introduced check_machine_version() function as a > > field test to ensure proper saving/loading based on the machine version. > > The VMSD.version is irrelevant now. > > > > Fixes: dfcf74fa ("virtio-gpu: fix scanout migration post-load") > > Suggested-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> > > I don't get it. Our standard way to do it is: > - add a property (begin name with x- so we don't commit to an API) > - set from compat machinery > - test property value in VMSTATE macros > > Big advantage is, it works well with any downstreams > which pick any properties they like. > Why is this not a good fit here? I think it'll simplify upstream to avoid introducing one new field + one new property for each of such protocol change, which fundamentally are the same thing. But it's indeed a good point that such helper can slightly complicate the backport a bit.. I assume a global replacement of versions over the helper will be needed after downstream settles on how to map downstream MCs to upstream's. Thanks,
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 05:03:44PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > Above all, I'm failing to see why there's a compelling reason > for virtio_gpu to diverge from our long standing practice of > adding a named property flag "virtio_scanout_vmstate_fix" > on the machine class, and then setting it in machine types > which need it. The reason to introduce that is definitely avoid introducing fields / properties in similar cases in which case all the fields may represent the same thing ("return true if MC is older than xxx version"). Especially when such change is not bound to a new feature so in which case it won't make sense to allow user to even control that propoerty, even if we exported this "x-virtio-scanout-fix" property, but now we must export it because compat fields require it. However I think agree that having upstream specific MC versions in VMSD checks is kind of unwanted. I think the major problem is we don't have that extra machine type abstract where we can have simply a number showing the release of QEMU, then we can map that number to whatever upstream/downstream machine types. E.g.: Release No. Upstream version Downstream version 50 9.0 Y.0 51 9.1 52 9.2 Y.1 ... Then downstream is not mapping to 9.0/... but the release no. Then here instead of hard code upstream MC versions we can already provide similar helpers like: machine_type_newer_than_50() Then device code can use it without polluting that with upstream MC versioning. Downstream will simply work if downstream MCs are mapped alright to the release no. when rebase. But I'm not sure whether it'll be even worthwhile.. the majority will still be that the VMSD change is caused by a new feature, and exporting that property might in most cases be wanted. In all cases, for now I agree it's at least easier to stick with the simple way. Thanks,
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:03:27AM -0600, Peter Xu wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 05:03:44PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Above all, I'm failing to see why there's a compelling reason > > for virtio_gpu to diverge from our long standing practice of > > adding a named property flag "virtio_scanout_vmstate_fix" > > on the machine class, and then setting it in machine types > > which need it. > > The reason to introduce that is definitely avoid introducing fields / > properties in similar cases in which case all the fields may represent the > same thing ("return true if MC is older than xxx version"). Especially > when such change is not bound to a new feature so in which case it won't > make sense to allow user to even control that propoerty, even if we > exported this "x-virtio-scanout-fix" property, but now we must export it > because compat fields require it. > > However I think agree that having upstream specific MC versions in VMSD > checks is kind of unwanted. I think the major problem is we don't have > that extra machine type abstract where we can have simply a number showing > the release of QEMU, then we can map that number to whatever > upstream/downstream machine types. E.g.: > > Release No. Upstream version Downstream version > 50 9.0 Y.0 > 51 9.1 > 52 9.2 Y.1 > ... Downstream versions do not map cleanly to individual upstream versions across the whole code base. If we have two distinct features in upstream version X, each of them may map to a different downstream release. This can happen when downstream skips one or more upstream releases. One feature from the skipped release might be backported to an earlier downstream release, while other feature might not arrive downstream until they later rebase. Version based checks are an inherantly undesirable idea for a situation where there is any backporting taking place, whether its machine type versions or something else. Named feature / flag based checks are always the way to go. With regards, Daniel
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:31:32AM -0600, Peter Xu wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:02:49PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 06:15:56PM +0400, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: > > > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> > > > > > > Commit dfcf74fa ("virtio-gpu: fix scanout migration post-load") broke > > > forward/backward version migration. Versioning of nested VMSD structures > > > is not straightforward, as the wire format doesn't have nested > > > structures versions. > > > > > > Use the previously introduced check_machine_version() function as a > > > field test to ensure proper saving/loading based on the machine version. > > > The VMSD.version is irrelevant now. > > > > > > Fixes: dfcf74fa ("virtio-gpu: fix scanout migration post-load") > > > Suggested-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> > > > > I don't get it. Our standard way to do it is: > > - add a property (begin name with x- so we don't commit to an API) > > - set from compat machinery > > - test property value in VMSTATE macros > > > > Big advantage is, it works well with any downstreams > > which pick any properties they like. > > Why is this not a good fit here? > > I think it'll simplify upstream to avoid introducing one new field + one > new property for each of such protocol change, which fundamentally are the > same thing. But it's indeed a good point that such helper can slightly > complicate the backport a bit.. I assume a global replacement of versions > over the helper will be needed after downstream settles on how to map > downstream MCs to upstream's. > > Thanks, There's nothing special about this specific code. If we want to rework how machine compat is handled we can do it, but I wouldn't start with this virtio gpu bug. It's a big if though, I don't like how this patch works at all.
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 06:15:48PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:03:27AM -0600, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 05:03:44PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > Above all, I'm failing to see why there's a compelling reason > > > for virtio_gpu to diverge from our long standing practice of > > > adding a named property flag "virtio_scanout_vmstate_fix" > > > on the machine class, and then setting it in machine types > > > which need it. > > > > The reason to introduce that is definitely avoid introducing fields / > > properties in similar cases in which case all the fields may represent the > > same thing ("return true if MC is older than xxx version"). Especially > > when such change is not bound to a new feature so in which case it won't > > make sense to allow user to even control that propoerty, even if we > > exported this "x-virtio-scanout-fix" property, but now we must export it > > because compat fields require it. > > > > However I think agree that having upstream specific MC versions in VMSD > > checks is kind of unwanted. I think the major problem is we don't have > > that extra machine type abstract where we can have simply a number showing > > the release of QEMU, then we can map that number to whatever > > upstream/downstream machine types. E.g.: > > > > Release No. Upstream version Downstream version > > 50 9.0 Y.0 > > 51 9.1 > > 52 9.2 Y.1 > > ... > > Downstream versions do not map cleanly to individual upstream versions > across the whole code base. If we have two distinct features in upstream > version X, each of them may map to a different downstream release. > > This can happen when downstream skips one or more upstream releases. > One feature from the skipped release might be backported to an earlier > downstream release, while other feature might not arrive downstream > until they later rebase. Version based checks are an inherantly > undesirable idea for a situation where there is any backporting taking > place, whether its machine type versions or something else. Named feature > / flag based checks are always the way to go. I thought this should work better with things like this where we only want to fix a break in ABI, and none of downstream should special case things like such fix.. but I agree even with that in mind such case could be so rare to bother with above scheme. I could have raised a bad idea I suppose. :-( Let's stick with the simple until someone has better idea. Thanks,
diff --git a/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c b/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c index ae831b6b3e..b2d8e5faeb 100644 --- a/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c +++ b/hw/display/virtio-gpu.c @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ #include "trace.h" #include "sysemu/dma.h" #include "sysemu/sysemu.h" +#include "hw/boards.h" #include "hw/virtio/virtio.h" #include "migration/qemu-file-types.h" #include "hw/virtio/virtio-gpu.h" @@ -1166,10 +1167,14 @@ static void virtio_gpu_cursor_bh(void *opaque) virtio_gpu_handle_cursor(&g->parent_obj.parent_obj, g->cursor_vq); } +static bool machine_check_9_0(void *opaque, int version) +{ + return machine_check_version(9, 0); +} + static const VMStateDescription vmstate_virtio_gpu_scanout = { .name = "virtio-gpu-one-scanout", - .version_id = 2, - .minimum_version_id = 1, + .version_id = 1, .fields = (const VMStateField[]) { VMSTATE_UINT32(resource_id, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), VMSTATE_UINT32(width, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), @@ -1181,12 +1186,12 @@ static const VMStateDescription vmstate_virtio_gpu_scanout = { VMSTATE_UINT32(cursor.hot_y, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), VMSTATE_UINT32(cursor.pos.x, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), VMSTATE_UINT32(cursor.pos.y, struct virtio_gpu_scanout), - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.format, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.bytes_pp, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.width, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.height, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.stride, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), - VMSTATE_UINT32_V(fb.offset, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, 2), + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.format, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.bytes_pp, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.width, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.height, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.stride, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), + VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(fb.offset, struct virtio_gpu_scanout, machine_check_9_0), VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST() }, };