Bug 1877467
| Summary: | Provide simple boolean hyperv=on option with reasonable defaults | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | Reporter: | Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost> |
| Component: | qemu-kvm | Assignee: | Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets> |
| qemu-kvm sub component: | CPU Models | QA Contact: | menli <menli> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | Docs Contact: | |
| Severity: | unspecified | ||
| Priority: | low | CC: | chayang, jinzhao, juzhang, leidwang, virt-maint, vkuznets, yacao |
| Version: | unspecified | Keywords: | RFE, Triaged |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2022-07-08 08:33:40 UTC | Type: | Enhancement |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | 6.0 |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1624786, 1888750 | ||
|
Description
Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-09 17:05:01 UTC
Vitaly, do you think we can target this for 8.4, or 8.4 is too soon? (In reply to Eduardo Habkost from comment #1) > Vitaly, do you think we can target this for 8.4, or 8.4 is too soon? This depends on whether Paolo will be able to queue the required KVM patches for 5.10 (will ping again today), in case he will it will on depend on QEMU acceptance of my '[PATCH RFC v3 00/23] i386: KVM: expand Hyper-V features early' series. I have no feedback to address ATM so assuming this means 'looks good' :-) Hi Vitaly, I saw a enlightenment called "hv-passthrough". Is it the same as "hyperv=on" in this bug? 201 4. Development features 202 ======================== 203 In some cases (e.g. during development) it may make sense to use QEMU in 204 'pass-through' mode and give Windows guests all enlightenments currently 205 supported by KVM. This pass-through mode is enabled by "hv-passthrough" CPU 206 flag. 207 Note: enabling this flag effectively prevents migration as supported features 208 may differ between target and destination. If this hyperv=on/hyper-passthrogh is ready, how to test this function？ reference: https://fossies.org/linux/qemu/docs/hyperv.txt It is not the same as 'hv-passthrough' is not migratable. Instread of a 'default set' it gives you everything supported by KVM. 'hyperv=on' is still in works upstream. Hi Vitaly (In reply to Vitaly Kuznetsov from comment #8) > It is not the same as 'hv-passthrough' is not migratable. Instread of a > 'default set' > it gives you everything supported by KVM. 'hyperv=on' is still in works > upstream. OK, got it. Need we cover hv-passthough for our tests? If yes, how to test this enlightenment? And should we add hv-passthrogh for our regular tests(not hv enlightenment specific) like hv-time/hv-vapic? Thanks Yu Wang 'hv-passthrough' enables all other hyper-v enlightenments (supported by KVM), there is no point in mixing it with individual features like 'hv-time'/'hv-vapic' (as it is a superset). 'hv-passthrough' is a developer/debug feature, it is not supported by libvirt so users should not use it. I don't think it deserves dedicated testing efforts. (In reply to Vitaly Kuznetsov from comment #10) > 'hv-passthrough' enables all other hyper-v enlightenments (supported > by KVM), there is no point in mixing it with individual features like > 'hv-time'/'hv-vapic' (as it is a superset). > > 'hv-passthrough' is a developer/debug feature, it is not supported > by libvirt so users should not use it. I don't think it deserves > dedicated testing efforts. OK, got it, thanks a lot! Bulk update: Move RHEL-AV bugs to RHEL9. If necessary to resolve in RHEL8, then clone to the current RHEL8 release. |