qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] migration/savevm: Allow immutable device state to be


From: Dr. David Alan Gilbert
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] migration/savevm: Allow immutable device state to be migrated early (i.e., before RAM)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 19:52:41 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/2.2.9 (2022-11-12)

* David Hildenbrand (david@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 12.01.23 18:56, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * David Hildenbrand (david@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > For virtio-mem, we want to have the plugged/unplugged state of memory
> > > blocks available before migrating any actual RAM content, and perform
> > > sanity checks before touching anything on the destination. This
> > > information is immutable on the migration source while migration is 
> > > active,
> > > 
> > > We want to use this information for proper preallocation support with
> > > migration: currently, we don't preallocate memory on the migration target,
> > > and especially with hugetlb, we can easily run out of hugetlb pages during
> > > RAM migration and will crash (SIGBUS) instead of catching this gracefully
> > > via preallocation.
> > > 
> > > Migrating device state via a vmsd before we start iterating is currently
> > > impossible: the only approach that would be possible is avoiding a vmsd
> > > and migrating state manually during save_setup(), to be restored during
> > > load_state().
> > > 
> > > Let's allow for migrating device state via a vmsd early, during the
> > > setup phase in qemu_savevm_state_setup(). To keep it simple, we
> > > indicate applicable vmds's using an "immutable" flag.
> > > 
> > > Note that only very selected devices (i.e., ones seriously messing with
> > > RAM setup) are supposed to make use of such early state migration.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >   include/migration/vmstate.h |  5 +++++
> > >   migration/savevm.c          | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > >   2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/migration/vmstate.h b/include/migration/vmstate.h
> > > index ad24aa1934..dd06c3abad 100644
> > > --- a/include/migration/vmstate.h
> > > +++ b/include/migration/vmstate.h
> > > @@ -179,6 +179,11 @@ struct VMStateField {
> > >   struct VMStateDescription {
> > >       const char *name;
> > >       int unmigratable;
> > > +    /*
> > > +     * The state is immutable while migration is active and is saved
> > > +     * during the setup phase, to be restored early on the destination.
> > > +     */
> > > +    int immutable;
> > 
> > A bool would be nicer (as it would for unmigratable above)
> 
> Yes, I chose an int for consistency with "unmigratable". I can turn that
> into a bool.
> 
> I'd even include a cleanup patch for unmigratable if it wouldn't be ...
> 
> $ git grep "unmigratable \=" | wc -l
> 29

It might be OK if you just change the declaration; I mean '1' is pretty
close to true? (I think...)
Anyway, at least make the new one a bool.

> > >       int version_id;
> > >       int minimum_version_id;
> > >       MigrationPriority priority;
> > > diff --git a/migration/savevm.c b/migration/savevm.c
> > > index ff2b8d0064..536d6f662b 100644
> > > --- a/migration/savevm.c
> > > +++ b/migration/savevm.c
> > > @@ -1200,6 +1200,15 @@ void qemu_savevm_state_setup(QEMUFile *f)
> > >       trace_savevm_state_setup();
> > >       QTAILQ_FOREACH(se, &savevm_state.handlers, entry) {
> > > +        if (se->vmsd && se->vmsd->immutable) {
> > > +            ret = vmstate_save(f, se, ms->vmdesc);
> > > +            if (ret) {
> > > +                qemu_file_set_error(f, ret);
> > > +                break;
> > > +            }
> > > +            continue;
> > > +        }
> > > +
> > 
> > Does this give you the ordering you want? i.e. there's no guarantee here
> > that immutables come first?
> 
> Yes, for virtio-mem at least this is fine. There are no real ordering
> requirements in regard to save_setup().
> 
> I guess one could use vmstate priorities to affect the ordering, if
> required.
> 
> So for my use case this is good enough, any suggestions? Thanks.

OK, but consider whether it might be better just to have a separate
QTAILQ_FOREACH look in savevm_state_setup that first does all the
immutables, and then all the setups.

Dave

> -- 
> Thanks,
> 
> David / dhildenb
> 
-- 
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK




reply via email to

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