[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] ivshmem migration restrictions and bugs
From: |
Markus Armbruster |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] ivshmem migration restrictions and bugs |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:37:55 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) |
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <address@hidden> writes:
> * Markus Armbruster (address@hidden) wrote:
>> TL;DR: I recommend to stay away from migration when using chardev=...
>>
>> ivshmem migration is messed up in several entertaining ways.
>>
>> = General lossage =
>>
>> G1. Migrating more than one peer doesn't work, but that's a (badly)
>> documented restriction, not a bug (see documentation of property
>> "role" in qemu-doc.texi). If you migrate more than one, the shared
>> memory can get messed up.
>>
>> G2. If peers connect on the destination before migration is complete,
>> the shared memory can get messed up. This isn't even badly
>> documented.
>>
>> Management applications can deal with this in principle.
>>
>> = Lossage with MSI-X (msi=on) =
>>
>> M1. s->intrstatus and s->intrmask (registers INTRSTATUS and INTRMASK)
>> are not migrated, even though they have guest-visible contents.
>> They reset to zero instead. Wrong, but unlikely to cause trouble,
>> because the registers are inert in this configuration.
>>
>> There's nothing management applications can do about this.
>>
>> = Lossage with interrupts (chardev=...) =
>>
>> I1. s->vm_id (register IVPOSITION) is not migrated. It briefly changes
>> to -1, then to whatever ID the server on the destination assigns.
>> To get the same ID back, you must carefully control the order in
>> which devices connect to the server on the destination: if this
>> device was the n-th to connect on the source, it must also be the
>> n-th on the destination.
>>
>> We can hope that the guest reads IVPOSITION rarely or not at all
>> after device driver initialization, so the temporary change to -1
>> will be overlooked most of the time.
>>
>> I2. If the shared memory's ramblock arrives at the destination before
>> shared memory setup completes, migration fails. Shared memory setup
>> completes shortly after the shared memory is received from the
>> server.
>>
>> I3. If migration completes before the shared memory setup completes on
>> the source, shared memory contents is lost (zeroed?).
Lost, not zeroed. You get whatever the server on the destination put
into shared memory.
>> I don't yet
>> know what happens when shared memory setup completes during
>> migration.
My best guess: it works.
>> G2 + I1 implies that you can only migrate the peer with ID zero.
>> Management applications need make sure the device with role=master
>> connects first both on source and destination, which seems feasible.
>>
>> There's nothing management applications can do about the temporary
>> IVPOSITION change (I1).
>>
>> There is no known way for a management application to wait for shared
>> memory setup to complete.
>>
>> Migration failure due to I2 is recoverable: restart the server on the
>> destination, and retry the migration with a bit more time between
>> running the destination QEMU and the migrate command. The server
>> restart is necessary to preserve ID zero.
>>
>> I'm not aware of a way to guard against or mitigate I3. Fortunately,
>> shared memory setup should almost always win the race.
>>
>> = What can we do about it? =
>>
>> G1 and G2 are a matter of improving documentation.
>>
>> M1 is easy enough to fix, if we care.
>>
>> That leaves I1, I2 and I3. Common root cause: we don't finish setup in
>> realize(), we merely arrange for messages from the server to be received
>> and processed. This exposes both guest and migration to an incompletely
>> set up device.
>>
>> Completing setup right in realize() would be simpler and race-free.
>> However, it could also make realize() hang waiting for a hung server.
>> Probably okay for -device, but what about hot plug?
>>
>> If it's not okay, we could split ivshmem into a frontend and a backend.
>> Hot plug could create the backend asynchronously, wait for it to
>> complete, then create the frontend / device model. Command line would
>> have to create the backend synchronously, of course.
>
> How can you tell when 'shared memory setup' is complete?
The device model knows, but it's not telling anybody.
> You could delay starting incoming migration on the destination or starting
> a migration on the source until that setup is complete.
That would require new hooks, I guess.
Completing setup in realize() achieves the same effect without such
hackery.
>
> Dave
>
>>
>> Other ideas?
>>
> --
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK