* Daniel P. Berrangé (berra...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:12:52PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > > On 7/2/20 12:57 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > savevm, loadvm and delvm are some of the few commands that have never > > > been converted to use QMP. The primary reason for this lack of > > > conversion is that they block execution of the thread for as long as > > > they run. > > > > > > Despite this downside, however, libvirt and applications using libvirt > > > has used these commands for as long as QMP has existed, via the > > > "human-monitor-command" passthrough command. IOW, while it is clearly > > > desirable to be able to fix the blocking problem, this is not an > > > immediate obstacle to real world usage. > > > > > > Meanwhile there is a need for other features which involve adding new > > > parameters to the commands. This is possible with HMP passthrough, but > > > it provides no reliable way for apps to introspect features, so using > > > QAPI modelling is highly desirable. > > > > > > This patch thus introduces trival savevm, loadvm, delvm commands > > > > trivial > > > > > to QMP that are functionally identical to the HMP counterpart, including > > > the blocking problem. > > > > Should we name them 'x-savevm', 'x-loadvm', 'x-delvm' to give ourselves room > > to change them when we DO solve the blocking issue? Or will the solution of > > the blocking issue introduce new QMP commands, at which point we can add QMP > > deprecation markers on these commands to eventually retire them? > > I was in two minds about this, so I'm open to arguments either way. > > The primary goal is for libvirt to consume the APIs as soon as possible, > and generally libvirt doesn't want todo this is they are declared experimental > via a "x-" prefix. So that pushes me away from "x-". > > If we don't have an "x-" prefix and want to make changes, we can add extra > parameters to trigger new behaviour in backwards compatible manner. Or we can > simply deprecate these commands, deleting them 2 releases later, while adding > completely new commands. > > If we think the prposed design will definitely need incompatible changes in > a very short time frame though, that would push towards "x-". > > So IMHO the right answer largely depends on whether there is a credible > strategy to implement the ideal non-blocking solution in a reasonable amount > of time. I can't justify spending much time on this myself, but I'm willing > to consider & try proposals for solving the blocking problem if they're not > too complex / invasive.
Remind me, what was the problem with just making a block: migration channel, and then we can migrate to it? Dave > I just don't want to end up having a "x-savevm" command for another 10 years, > waiting for a perfect solution that never arrives because people always have > higher priority items, as apps are clearly able to accept the blocking problem > if the alternative is no snapshots at all. > > > > > + > > > +## > > > +# @savevm: > > > +# > > > +# Save a VM snapshot > > > +# > > > +# @tag: name of the snapshot to create. If it already > > > +# exists it will be replaced. > > > +# > > > +# Note that execution of the VM will be paused during the time > > > +# it takes to save the snapshot > > > +# > > > +# Returns: nothing > > > +# > > > +# Example: > > > +# > > > +# -> { "execute": "savevm", > > > +# "data": { > > > +# "tag": "my-snap" > > > +# } > > > +# } > > > +# <- { "return": { } } > > > +# > > > +# Since: 5.2 > > > > I guess you are NOT trying to make 5.1 soft freeze next week? > > Correct. It is unrealistic to consider this for soft freeze. > > I'd really love to have a solution in 5.2 though, even if it doesn't > solve all our problems. Something that can at least unblock apps that > want to use OVMF with internal snapshots today. > > Regards, > Daniel > -- > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK