qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: MultiFD and default channel out of order mapping on receive side.


From: manish.mishra
Subject: Re: MultiFD and default channel out of order mapping on receive side.
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 14:26:15 +0530
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.2


On 13/10/22 1:45 pm, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 01:23:40AM +0530, manish.mishra wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Hope everyone is doing great. I have seen some live migration issues with 
qemu-4.2 when using multiFD. Signature of issue is something like this.
2022-10-01T09:57:53.972864Z qemu-kvm: failed to receive packet via multifd 
channel 0: multifd: received packet magic 5145564d expected 11223344

Basically default live migration channel packet is received on multiFD channel. 
I see a older patch explaining potential reason for this behavior.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.gnu.org_archive_html_qemu-2Ddevel_2019-2D10_msg05920.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=s883GpUCOChKOHiocYtGcg&r=c4KON2DiMd-szjwjggQcuUvTsPWblztAL0gVzaHnNmc&m=LZBcU_C3HMbpUCFZgqxkS-pV8C2mHOjqUTzt45LlLwa26DA0pCAjJVDoamnX8vnC&s=B-b_HMnn_ee6JeA87-PVNBrBqxzdWYgo5PpaP91dqT8&e=
[PATCH 3/3] migration/multifd: fix potential wrong acception order of IO.
But i see this patch was not merged. By looking at qemu master code, i
could not find any other patch too which can handle this issue. So as
per my understanding this is still a potential issue even in qemu
master. I mainly wanted to check why this patch was dropped?
See my repllies in that message - it broke compatilibity of data on
the wire, meaning old QEMU can't talk to new QEMU and vica-verca.

We need a fix for this issue, but it needs to take into account
wire compatibility.

With regards,
Daniel

ok got it, thank you so much Daniel, in that case i will try to create some 
patch considering backward compatibility and send for review. Mainly i wanted 
to understand if it is handled somehow differently in upstream master, but 
manually looking code it did not look like that, so just wanted to confirm.

Thanks

Manish Mishra





reply via email to

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