Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: Writable module parameters in KVM
To:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
References: <CANgfPd_Pq2MkRUZiJynh7zkNuKE5oFGRjKeCjmgYP4vwvfMc1g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <35fe7a86-d808-00e9-a6aa-e77b731bd4bf@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 May 2021 12:49:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANgfPd_Pq2MkRUZiJynh7zkNuKE5oFGRjKeCjmgYP4vwvfMc1g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 26/05/21 01:45, Ben Gardon wrote:
> 
> At Google we have an informal practice of adding sysctls to control some 
> KVM features. Usually these just act as simple "chicken bits" which 
> allow us to turn off a feature without having to stall a kernel rollout 
> if some feature causes problems. (Sysctls were used for reasons specific 
> to Google infrastructure, not because they're necessarily better.)
> 
> We'd like to get rid of this divergence with upstream by converting the 
> sysctls to writable module parameters, but I'm not sure what the general 
> guidance is on writable module parameters. Looking through KVM, it seems 
> like we have several writable parameters, but they're mostly read-only.

Sure, making them writable is okay.  Most KVM parameters are read-only 
because it's much simpler (the usecase for introducing them was simply 
"test what would happen on old processors").  What are these features 
that you'd like to control?

> I also don't see central documentation of the module parameters. They're 
> mentioned in the documentation for other features, but don't have their 
> own section / file. Should they?

They probably should, yes.

Paolo