[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd an
From: |
Fabiano Rosas |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Apr 2023 11:41:18 -0300 |
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:
> On 30.03.23 20:03, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'm continuing the work done last year to add a new format of
>> migration stream that can be used to migrate large guests to a single
>> file in a performant way.
>>
>> This is an early RFC with the previous code + my additions to support
>> multifd and direct IO. Let me know what you think!
>>
>> Here are the reference links for previous discussions:
>>
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2022-08/msg01813.html
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2022-10/msg01338.html
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2022-10/msg05536.html
>>
>> The series has 4 main parts:
>>
>> 1) File migration: A new "file:" migration URI. So "file:mig" does the
>> same as "exec:cat > mig". Patches 1-4 implement this;
>>
>> 2) Fixed-ram format: A new format for the migration stream. Puts guest
>> pages at their relative offsets in the migration file. This saves
>> space on the worst case of RAM utilization because every page has a
>> fixed offset in the migration file and (potentially) saves us time
>> because we could write pages independently in parallel. It also
>> gives alignment guarantees so we could use O_DIRECT. Patches 5-13
>> implement this;
>>
>> With patches 1-13 these two^ can be used with:
>>
>> (qemu) migrate_set_capability fixed-ram on
>> (qemu) migrate[_incoming] file:mig
>
> There are some use cases (especially virtio-mem, but also virtio-balloon
> with free-page-hinting) where we end up having very sparse guest RAM. We
> don't want to have such "memory without meaning" in the migration stream
> nor restore it on the destination.
>
Is that what is currently defined by ramblock_page_is_discarded ->
virtio_mem_rdm_is_populated ?
> Would that still be supported with the new format? For example, have a
> sparse VM savefile and remember which ranges actually contain reasonable
> data?
We do ignore zero pages, so I don't think it would be an issue to have
another criteria for ignoring pages. It seems if we do enable postcopy
load w/ fixed-ram that would be already handled in postcopy_request_page.
- Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram, David Hildenbrand, 2023/04/03
- Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram,
Fabiano Rosas <=
- Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram, Claudio Fontana, 2023/04/03
- Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram, Peter Xu, 2023/04/03
- Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram, Claudio Fontana, 2023/04/04
- Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram, Peter Xu, 2023/04/04
- Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram, Claudio Fontana, 2023/04/04
- Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram, Peter Xu, 2023/04/04
- Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram, Fabiano Rosas, 2023/04/06
- Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/26] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram, Claudio Fontana, 2023/04/07