Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy

[David Gibson]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 08:04:14PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * David Gibson (address@hidden) wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:37:59PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > * David Gibson (address@hidden) wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:19:54AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > > > * David Gibson (address@hidden) wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:51:43PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert 
> > > > > > (git) wrote:
> > > > > > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <address@hidden>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Modify save_live_pending to return separate postcopiable and
> > > > > > > non-postcopiable counts.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Add 'can_postcopy' to allow a device to state if it can postcopy
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What's the purpose of the can_postcopy callback?  There are no 
> > > > > > callers
> > > > > > in this patch - is it still necessary with the change to
> > > > > > save_live_pending?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The patch 'qemu_savevm_state_complete: Postcopy changes' uses
> > > > > it in qemu_savevm_state_postcopy_complete and 
> > > > > qemu_savevm_state_complete
> > > > > to decide which devices must be completed at that point.
> > > > 
> > > > Couldn't they check for non-zero postcopiable state from
> > > > save_live_pending instead?
> > > 
> > > That would be a bit weird.
> > > 
> > > At the moment for each device we call the:
> > >        save_live_setup method (from qemu_savevm_state_begin)
> > > 
> > >    0...multiple times we call:
> > >        save_live_pending
> > >        save_live_iterate
> > > 
> > >    and then we always call
> > >        save_live_complete
> > > 
> > > 
> > > To my mind we have to call save_live_complete for any device
> > > that we've called save_live_setup on (maybe it allocated something
> > > in _setup that it clears up in _complete).
> > > 
> > > save_live_pending could perfectly well return 0 remaining at the end of
> > > the migrate for our device, and thus if we used that then we wouldn't
> > > call save_live_complete.
> > 
> > Um.. I don't follow.  I was suggesting that at the precopy->postcopy
> > transition point you call save_live_complete for everything that
> > reports 0 post-copiable state.
> > 
> > 
> > Then again, a different approach would be to split the
> > save_live_complete hook into (possibly NULL) "complete precopy" and
> > "complete postcopy" hooks.  The core would ensure that every chunk of
> > state has both completion hooks called (unless NULL).  That might also
> > address my concerns about the no longer entirely accurate
> > save_live_complete function name.
> 
> OK, that one I prefer.  Are you OK with:
>     qemu_savevm_state_complete_precopy
>        calls -> save_live_complete_precopy
> 
>     qemu_savevm_state_complete_postcopy
>        calls -> save_live_complete_postcopy
> 
> ?

Sounds ok to me.  Fwiw, I was thinking that both the complete_precopy
and complete_postcopy hooks should always be called.  For a
non-postcopy migration, the postcopy hooks would just be called
immediately after the precopy hooks.

-- 
David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                                | _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

pgpn7e2LBnEbr.pgp
Description: PGP signature