[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy
From: |
David Gibson |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:35:35 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 03:00:29PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * David Gibson (address@hidden) wrote:
> > 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.
>
> OK, I've made the change as described in my last mail; but I haven't called
> the complete_postcopy hook in the precopy case. If it was as simple as making
> all devices use one or the other then it would work, however there are
> existing (precopy) assumptions about ordering of device state on the wire that
> I want to be careful not to alter; for example RAM must come first is the one
> I know.
It's not obvious to me why that matters to the hook scheme.
--
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
pgpiqHabFWt0U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, David Gibson, 2015/03/16
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2015/03/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, David Gibson, 2015/03/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2015/03/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, David Gibson, 2015/03/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2015/03/25
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2015/03/25
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, David Gibson, 2015/03/25
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2015/03/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, David Gibson, 2015/03/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy,
David Gibson <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, Paolo Bonzini, 2015/03/30
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 20/45] Modify savevm handlers for postcopy, David Gibson, 2015/03/30