[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Dropping the MONITOR_CMD_ASYNC

From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Dropping the MONITOR_CMD_ASYNC
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:24:53 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110831 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.13

On 12/12/2011 10:00 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 03:23:35PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Gerd Hoffmann<address@hidden>  wrote:
On 12/12/11 13:10, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Gerd Hoffmann<address@hidden>  wrote:
On 12/12/11 11:18, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Alon Levy<address@hidden>  wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 05:45:44PM -0200, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
Hi there,

I'm about to completely drop the MONITOR_CMD_ASYNC API, but it turns out that
the command client_migrate_info uses it. That's a legacy interface and has to
be dropped, no command should be using it...

Something tells me that if I just drop it (and change the command to use the
regular interface), bad things will happen. Am I right? :)

The monitor command client_migrate_info needs to complete after getting
an ACK message from the currently connected spice client (this is the
only case where this is required - if there is no client then the
MONITOR_CMD_ASYNC API won't be used). This in turn requires the main
thread to perform select and call the callback that will process this
ACK. That's why the MONITOR_CMD_ASYNC API was used.

I'm not aware of any other way to do this, I'll be glad for any help
here. Also, I understand this is not what is not true async, since one
would expect a true async interface to support multiple in flight
monitor commands. If there is any ETA or existing way to do this we
could change the implementation of client_migrate_info.

Is it possible to use a QMP event to signal completion instead of a

Problem is this breaks the qemu<->  libvirt interface.

I had the same issue with the block_job_cancel command, which Adam
Litke and Eric Blake helped us fix and find a backward-compatible
libvirt solution for:


Isn't going to fly as waiting for completion isn't optional in that
case.  Workflow is this:

(1) libvirt issues client_migrate_info command.
(2) qemu forwards it to spice-server, which in turn forwards it to
    the spice client (if connected).
(3) spice client connects to the migration target machine.
(4) spice client signals completion to spice-server, which in turn
    notifies qemu.
(5) qemu calls the monitor completion callback, libvirt gets
    client_migrate_info result.
(6) libvirt issues migrate command.

The problem is that (3) must be finished before (6) because qemu on the
target side doesn't accept incoming tcp connections any more once the
migration started.

I don't see a way to switch this to qmp events without breaking old
libvirt versions managing new qemu.

I don't see a solution in this case either.  Looks like libvirt
supports this command since 0.9.2 so it's not a good idea to just yank

It might be possible for the QEMU client_migrate_info handler to run a
nested event loop in the legacy libvirt case.  This would suck since
the VM is unresponsive while waiting for spice migration to complete.
New libvirt would call the async version of the command which is
well-behaved and uses a QMP event to signal completion.

I agree that a nested event loop would be a bad solution, the point is
to let the guest continue to work while waiting, otherwise you destroy
the live migration experience, might as well disconnect the client from
the source and have it connect to the target.

I thought the whole point of MONITOR_CMD_ASYNC was to allow this
scenario. So iiuc QMP is the alternative but it would require a rewrite,
i.e. break existing users like libvirt. Hence my suggestion as a reply
to Luiz's initial email that we just deprecate MONITOR_CMD_ASYNC right
now instead of dropping it,

It *has* to be dropped.  Any command using it is fundamentally broken.

The command should have never been introduced in the first place to use async.


Anthony Liguori

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]