From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C2941FF389 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:00:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CC0F31DB0E; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:01:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9fc681c0-5d89-47eb-bd04-cef4bbb7acec@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:01:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20240419124556.3334691-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <4dedad91-81bf-454f-b71c-3c639f344c87@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <4dedad91-81bf-454f-b71c-3c639f344c87@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.021 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH guest-common/qemu-server/manager/docs v3 0/4] implement experimental vgpu live migration X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On 5/31/24 13:14, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 19.04.24 um 14:45 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> and some useful cleanups >> >> Resending even there was not much feedback, because i worked in some >> minor fixes/changes in the meantime. >> >> A user tested the previous patch series and only found one issue with >> the ui, see the comments on bug #5175 >> >> https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=5175 >> >> >> This is implemented for mapped resources. This requires driver and >> hardware support, but aside from nvidia vgpus there don't seem to be >> many drivers (if any) that do support that. >> >> qemu already supports that for vfio-pci devices, so nothing to be >> done there besides actively enabling it. >> >> Since we currently can't properly test it here and very much depends on >> hardware/driver support, mark it as experimental everywhere (docs/api/gui). >> (though i tested the live-migration part manually here by using >> "exec:cat > /tmp/test" for the migration target, and "exec: cat >> /tmp/test" as the 'incoming' parameter for a new vm start, which worked ;) ) >> >> i opted for marking them migratable at the mapping level, but we could >> theoretically also put it in the hostpciX config instead. >> (though imho it fits better in the cluster-wide resource mapping config) >> >> also the naming/texts could probably be improved, but i think >> 'live-migration-capable' is very descriptive and i didn't want to >> use an overly short name for it (which can be confusing, see the >> 'shared' flag for storages) >> >> guest-common 2/4 semi-breaks pve-manager without pve-manager 1/5 >> and qemu-server without 3/10 >> (would always fail for devices capable of mediated devices) >> > > And guest-common 4/4 fully breaks old qemu-server because it removes the > find_on_current_node() functions. > true, though we could leave it in, and mark it with a TODO to remove in 9.x ? but i'll leave that to the packaging people to decide which variant is less work/hassle ;) >> guest-common 1,2; qemu-server 1-6; pve-manager 1,2 >> are preparations/cleanups mostly and could be applied independently >> _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel