Fedora xen - Nov 2008 - Updating out-of-date Fedora XenPvopsDom0 wiki page

Hi!

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0

Could someone with wiki access update that page.. it contains a lot of
out-of-date information. That page is also referenced in F10 release notes.. 

Things like:

- "Work on getting Dom0 support in the upstream kernel has pretty much
stalled
for the last number of months so this feature is postponed until work
upstream restarts." 

- "Last updated: 2008-07-30"

- "x86_64 Dom0 No active work yet...."

And many more things are out-of-date, because they''re based on earlier
work
by Redhat/Fedora people.. 

Upstream (Xensource) is actively working on pv_ops dom0 now, and it''s
getting close to being included upstream.


latest pv_ops dom0 patches:
http://xenbits.xen.org/paravirt_ops/patches.hg/

Xen wiki pv_ops status page:
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps


-- Pasi

I quickly made the changes you pointed out. I can give it some more love
a little later.

Thanks
-- 
Dale Bewley - Unix Administrator - Shields Library - UC Davis
GPG: 0xB098A0F3 0D5A 9AEB 43F4 F84C 7EFD  1753 064D 2583 B098 A0F3

I made a few more changes to the "Current Status" section. Note it is
still at a seemingly arbitrary 30% complete. 

I didn''t try to touch the details under "Scope". 

Pasi, are you saying the status and scope details are obsolete and the
work previously done at redhat (and enumerated on this page) is now done
at xensource? If so, can you provide more details to replace what''s on
this page? 

Are the feature owners working on these kernel patches? Is this totally
upstream, and outside of Fedora until committed to the kernel?

If the feature owners could provide a more thorough update of this page,
it may be helpful to users.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0

-- 
Dale Bewley - Unix Administrator - Shields Library - UC Davis
GPG: 0xB098A0F3 0D5A 9AEB 43F4 F84C 7EFD  1753 064D 2583 B098 A0F3

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 06:39:12PM -0800, Dale Bewley
wrote:
> I made a few more changes to the "Current Status" section. Note
it is
> still at a seemingly arbitrary 30% complete. 
>
Good.
 
> I didn''t try to touch the details under "Scope". 
> 
Yep.

Also I think the "i386 Dom0" chapter is out of date.. it is not based
on
the current patches.

"Status update" two weeks ago or so:
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2008-11/msg00205.html

"The current dom0 kernel patches can boot up to a fully functional dom0
usersmode, and you can start xend to see that domain 0 is running. I *think*
in theory you can create a deviceless domain, but I haven''t tried it.
I''m
currently working on blktap support."

So maybe remove both the "i386 dom0" and "x86_64 Dom0"
chapters and replace
them with something more up to date..
> Pasi, are you saying the status and scope details are obsolete and the
> work previously done at redhat (and enumerated on this page) is now done
> at xensource? If so, can you provide more details to replace
what''s on
> this page? 
> 
Yes, that''s what I''m saying. Afaik "Scope" is based
on earlier
work by redhat/fedora, and most of that information is now obsolete.

Jeremy Fitzhardinge of Xensource is now working on completing Xen pv_ops
dom0 support. Afaik it was started from the work done by redhat/fedora.

pv_ops dom0 patches posted to lkml by Jeremy Fitzhardinge:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/13/272
> Are the feature owners working on these kernel patches? Is this totally
> upstream, and outside of Fedora until committed to the kernel?
> 
Afaik it is totally upstream now.. ie. Xensource is doing this work, and
Fedora is just waiting for upstream (vanilla) Linux kernels to get this support
merged in..
> If the feature owners could provide a more thorough update of this page,
> it may be helpful to users.
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0
> 
Yep, it would be nice to get comments from others too.

And thanks to you for updating the page!

-- Pasi

Hi,
	Thanks for poking at this - I''ve updated the page to remove any
tracking of the in-progress kernel support, since it''s all better
tracked elsewhere now.

	My advice to anyone wanting to help this along is to build and test
Jeremy''s work and iron out any issues with Fedora''s xen
userland running
on it.

	Apart from the upstream kernel work, we also need to make sure that the
hypervisor can boot bzImage kernels. Currently only the libxc DomU
domain builder has bzImage support. The issue with Dom0 is the
hypervisor currently doesn''t gunzip the vmlinuz kernel ...
it''s actually
grub that does that but it doesn''t make sense for grub to gunzip
bzImage
kernels.

	The only Fedora specific piece remaining is to add a way for
new-kernel-pkg to know that it should set up grub.conf with xen.gz.

Thanks,
Mark.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:34:17AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin
wrote:
> Hi,
> 	Thanks for poking at this - I''ve updated the page to remove any
> tracking of the in-progress kernel support, since it''s all better
> tracked elsewhere now.
>
Ok.

Although "i386 Dom0", "x86_64 Dom0" and "Scope"
sections still need heavy
editing..

Also, it might be a good idea to mention about this temporary Linux 2.6.27
Xenlinux repository with dom0 support included (with a patch from Suse):

http://xenbits.xensource.com/ext/linux-2.6.27-xen.hg

That 2.6.27 kernel is NOT based on pv_ops, but to a forward-port from 2.6.18
Xenlinux kernel. It is just a temporary tree until pv_ops dom0 is ready.
 
Announcement about that temporary 2.6.27 Xenlinux tree:
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2008-11/msg00600.html

> 	My advice to anyone wanting to help this along is to build and test
> Jeremy''s work and iron out any issues with Fedora''s xen
userland running
> on it.
>
Yes, that would be a good idea. 

Does someone want to build some testing RPMs? :)
 
-- Pasi

On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 11:48 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:34:17AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 	Thanks for poking at this - I''ve updated the page to remove
any
> > tracking of the in-progress kernel support, since it''s all
better
> > tracked elsewhere now.
> >
> 
> Ok.
> 
> Although "i386 Dom0", "x86_64 Dom0" and
"Scope" sections still need heavy
> editing..
I removed them - maybe you missed my updates?
> Also, it might be a good idea to mention about this temporary Linux 2.6.27
> Xenlinux repository with dom0 support included (with a patch from Suse):
> 
> http://xenbits.xensource.com/ext/linux-2.6.27-xen.hg
> 
> That 2.6.27 kernel is NOT based on pv_ops, but to a forward-port from
2.6.18
> Xenlinux kernel. It is just a temporary tree until pv_ops dom0 is ready.
>  
> Announcement about that temporary 2.6.27 Xenlinux tree:
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2008-11/msg00600.html
It''s not really relevant to Fedora - we''re not going back to
the bad old
days of having a separate Xen kernel. We made the call in Fedora 9 to no
longer waste effort on any forwarded ported 2.6.18 tree and focus all
efforts on upstream pv_ops, since that''s where the future lies.

Personally, I''m disappointed to see this linux-2.6.27-xen.hg tree
appear. Any effort invested in this tree is effort that could be spent
on helping with the upstream pv_ops work.
> > 	My advice to anyone wanting to help this along is to build and test
> > Jeremy''s work and iron out any issues with Fedora''s
xen userland running
> > on it.
> >
> 
> Yes, that would be a good idea. 
> 
> Does someone want to build some testing RPMs? :)
A volunteer to do this would be very welcome indeed :-)

Cheers,
Mark.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:57:26AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin
wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 11:48 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:34:17AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 	Thanks for poking at this - I''ve updated the page to
remove any
> > > tracking of the in-progress kernel support, since it''s
all better
> > > tracked elsewhere now.
> > >
> > 
> > Ok.
> > 
> > Although "i386 Dom0", "x86_64 Dom0" and
"Scope" sections still need heavy
> > editing..
> 
> I removed them - maybe you missed my updates?
>
Oh, now it seems to be OK. I guess I refreshed before you submitted your
changes, or then my browser cached the old page. 

Anyway, now it''s better.
 
> > Also, it might be a good idea to mention about this temporary Linux
2.6.27
> > Xenlinux repository with dom0 support included (with a patch from
Suse):
> > 
> > http://xenbits.xensource.com/ext/linux-2.6.27-xen.hg
> > 
> > That 2.6.27 kernel is NOT based on pv_ops, but to a forward-port from
2.6.18
> > Xenlinux kernel. It is just a temporary tree until pv_ops dom0 is
ready.
> >  
> > Announcement about that temporary 2.6.27 Xenlinux tree:
> >
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2008-11/msg00600.html
> 
> It''s not really relevant to Fedora - we''re not going back
to the bad old
> days of having a separate Xen kernel. We made the call in Fedora 9 to no
> longer waste effort on any forwarded ported 2.6.18 tree and focus all
> efforts on upstream pv_ops, since that''s where the future lies.
>
I know. But it might be relevant for people who want to build their own dom0
kernel.. before pv_ops dom0 is ready.
 
> Personally, I''m disappointed to see this linux-2.6.27-xen.hg tree
> appear. Any effort invested in this tree is effort that could be spent
> on helping with the upstream pv_ops work.
>
Yep.. The tree is based on work done by Suse for SLES11. Xensource just
imported their patches to that temporary tree.

I don''t think Xensource will be putting much (if any) effort into that
tree.
 
> > > 	My advice to anyone wanting to help this along is to build and
test
> > > Jeremy''s work and iron out any issues with
Fedora''s xen userland running
> > > on it.
> > >
> > 
> > Yes, that would be a good idea. 
> > 
> > Does someone want to build some testing RPMs? :)
> 
> A volunteer to do this would be very welcome indeed :-)
> 
:)

-- Pasi

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:57:26AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin
wrote:
> 
> > > 	My advice to anyone wanting to help this along is to build and
test
> > > Jeremy''s work and iron out any issues with
Fedora''s xen userland running
> > > on it.
> > >
> > 
> > Yes, that would be a good idea. 
> > 
> > Does someone want to build some testing RPMs? :)
> 
> A volunteer to do this would be very welcome indeed :-)
> 
If I find some extra time I might try building some testing RPMs with Xen pv_ops
dom0 patches included.. 

Should this new unified kernel-package work out of the box (after adding
dom0 patches), or should I use the latest kernel-xen as a starting point? 

I was thinking about grub menu.lst generation etc.. 

-- Pasi

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 18:24 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> If I find some extra time I might try building some testing RPMs with Xen
pv_ops
> dom0 patches included.. 
> 
> Should this new unified kernel-package work out of the box (after adding
> dom0 patches), or should I use the latest kernel-xen as a starting point? 
> 
> I was thinking about grub menu.lst generation etc.. 
Well, the two outstanding work items that no-one is looking at are:

  * Allow the hypervisor to boot bzImage kernels

  * Make ''new-kernel-pkg'' aware of HYPERVISOR setting 
    in /etc/sysconfig/xen

Each of these mean that building the standard kernel with the dom0
patches won''t be enough, so you could build a kernel-xen-dom0 RPM which
a) ships a vmlinuz kernel instead of bzImage and b) adds xen.gz to
grub.conf.

In the long run, though, what would be most useful would be if someone
started working on those two work items.

Cheers,
Mark.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:19:14AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin
wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 18:24 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> 
> > If I find some extra time I might try building some testing RPMs with
Xen pv_ops
> > dom0 patches included.. 
> > 
> > Should this new unified kernel-package work out of the box (after
adding
> > dom0 patches), or should I use the latest kernel-xen as a starting
point?
> > 
> > I was thinking about grub menu.lst generation etc.. 
> 
> Well, the two outstanding work items that no-one is looking at are:
> 
>   * Allow the hypervisor to boot bzImage kernels
>
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-01/msg00685.html
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-01/msg00694.html

Those two patches should be it.. ?
 
>   * Make ''new-kernel-pkg'' aware of HYPERVISOR setting 
>     in /etc/sysconfig/xen
> 
> Each of these mean that building the standard kernel with the dom0
> patches won''t be enough, so you could build a kernel-xen-dom0 RPM
which
> a) ships a vmlinuz kernel instead of bzImage and b) adds xen.gz to
> grub.conf.
> 
> In the long run, though, what would be most useful would be if someone
> started working on those two work items.
> 
-- Pasi

On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 16:32 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:19:14AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 18:24 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > 
> > > If I find some extra time I might try building some testing RPMs
with Xen pv_ops
> > > dom0 patches included.. 
> > > 
> > > Should this new unified kernel-package work out of the box (after
adding
> > > dom0 patches), or should I use the latest kernel-xen as a
starting point?
> > > 
> > > I was thinking about grub menu.lst generation etc.. 
> > 
> > Well, the two outstanding work items that no-one is looking at are:
> > 
> >   * Allow the hypervisor to boot bzImage kernels
> >
> 
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-01/msg00685.html
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-01/msg00694.html
> 
> Those two patches should be it.. ?
Excellent, yep that''s it.

Care to update the wiki?

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0

Cheers,
Mark.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:05:23PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin
wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 16:32 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:19:14AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 18:24 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If I find some extra time I might try building some testing
RPMs with Xen pv_ops
> > > > dom0 patches included.. 
> > > > 
> > > > Should this new unified kernel-package work out of the box
(after adding
> > > > dom0 patches), or should I use the latest kernel-xen as a
starting point?
> > > > 
> > > > I was thinking about grub menu.lst generation etc.. 
> > > 
> > > Well, the two outstanding work items that no-one is looking at
are:
> > > 
> > >   * Allow the hypervisor to boot bzImage kernels
> > >
> > 
> >
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-01/msg00685.html
> >
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-01/msg00694.html
> > 
> > Those two patches should be it.. ?
> 
> Excellent, yep that''s it.
> 
> Care to update the wiki?
> 
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0
> 
Or actually this (complete/fixed) patch:
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-01/msg00699.html

I''m in the process of creating my Fedora account so let''s see
if I get it
done and can edit that page then..

-- Pasi

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 05:59:12PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:05:23PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 16:32 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:19:14AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 18:24 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > If I find some extra time I might try building some
testing RPMs with Xen pv_ops
> > > > > dom0 patches included.. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Should this new unified kernel-package work out of the
box (after adding
> > > > > dom0 patches), or should I use the latest kernel-xen as
a starting point?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was thinking about grub menu.lst generation etc.. 
> > > > 
> > > > Well, the two outstanding work items that no-one is looking
at are:
> > > > 
> > > >   * Allow the hypervisor to boot bzImage kernels
> > > >
> > > 
> > >
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-01/msg00685.html
> > >
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-01/msg00694.html
> > > 
> > > Those two patches should be it.. ?
> > 
> > Excellent, yep that''s it.
> > 
> > Care to update the wiki?
> > 
> >   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0
> > 
> 
> Or actually this (complete/fixed) patch:
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-01/msg00699.html
> 
> I''m in the process of creating my Fedora account so let''s
see if I get it
> done and can edit that page then..
> 
Ok, XenPvopsDom0 wiki page modified.. I added the link to the patch.

-- Pasi