From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99C299427A for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:39:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6D9921B356 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:39:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:39:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 787644458B for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:39:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1d79d880-e0f6-4875-ae5b-483a62028a60@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:39:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Fiona Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20231219094023.25726-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com> <20231219094023.25726-6-f.schauer@proxmox.com> From: Filip Schauer In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.107 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 qemu-server 4/4] cpu config: Unify the default value for 'kvm' X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:39:41 -0000 On 19/02/2024 15:47, Fiona Ebner wrote: > On an x86_64 host, for guests using a different architecture (i.e. > aarch64), hot-plugging is already broken, because we try to hotplug a > CPU of type "$cpu-x86_64-cpu,XYZ" which won't work anyways: > > vcpus: hotplug problem - VM 130 qmp command 'device_add' failed - > 'kvm64-x86_64-cpu' is not a valid device model name > > The actual breaking change is for the host arch being something other > than x86_64 (which isn't officially supported) and the VM being x86_64, ... > >> @@ -414,9 +415,9 @@ sub get_custom_model { >> >> # Print a QEMU device node for a given VM configuration for hotplugging CPUs >> sub print_cpu_device { >> - my ($conf, $id) = @_; >> + my ($conf, $arch, $id) = @_; >> >> - my $kvm = $conf->{kvm} // 1; >> + my $kvm = $conf->{kvm} // is_native($arch); >> my $cpu = get_default_cpu_type('x86_64', $kvm); > ...because in that case, before this patch we got kvm64 here, but with > the patch we get qemu64 which would be a problem for live-migration. I expressed my opinion on this matter in the following mail: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2023-December/061131.html