Re: [PATCH V2 00/11] Live update: cpr-exec

[Peter Xu]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 04:55:20PM -0400, Steven Sistare wrote:
> On 8/13/2024 3:46 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 04:56:18PM -0400, Steven Sistare wrote:
> > > > The flipside, however, is that localhost migration via 2 separate QEMU
> > > > processes has issues where both QEMUs want to be opening the very same
> > > > file, and only 1 of them can ever have them open.
> > 
> > I thought we used to have similar issue with block devices, but I assume
> > it's solved for years (and whoever owns it will take proper file lock,
> > IIRC, and QEMU migration should properly serialize the time window on who's
> > going to take the file lock).
> > 
> > Maybe this is about something else?
> 
> I don't have an example where this fails.
> 
> I can cause "Failed to get "write" lock" errors if two qemu instances open
> the same block device, but the error is suppressed if you add the -incoming
> argument, due to this code:
> 
>   blk_attach_dev()
>     if (runstate_check(RUN_STATE_INMIGRATE))
>       blk->disable_perm = true;

Yep, this one is pretty much expected.

> 
> > > Indeed, and "files" includes unix domain sockets.
> 
> More on this -- the second qemu to bind a unix domain socket for listening
> wins, and the first qemu loses it (because second qemu unlinks and recreates
> the socket path before binding on the assumption that it is stale).
> 
> One must use a different name for the socket for second qemu, and clients
> that wish to connect must be aware of the new port.
> 
> > > Network ports also conflict.
> > > cpr-exec avoids such problems, and is one of the advantages of the method 
> > > that
> > > I forgot to promote.
> > 
> > I was thinking that's fine, as the host ports should be the backend of the
> > VM ports only anyway so they don't need to be identical on both sides?
> > 
> > IOW, my understanding is it's the guest IP/ports/... which should still be
> > stable across migrations, where the host ports can be different as long as
> > the host ports can forward guest port messages correctly?
> 
> Yes, one must use a different host port number for the second qemu, and 
> clients
> that wish to connect must be aware of the new port.
> 
> That is my point -- cpr-transfer requires fiddling with such things.
> cpr-exec does not.

Right, and my understanding is all these facilities are already there, so
no new code should be needed on reconnect issues if to support cpr-transfer
in Libvirt or similar management layers that supports migrations.

I suppose that's also why I'm slightly confused on how cpr-exec can provide
benefit for mgmt layers yet so far with these open projects.  It might
affect Oracle's mgmt layers, but again I'm curious why Oracle does not
support these, because if that should support normal live migration, I
thought it should be needed to support changed ports on host etc..

-- 
Peter Xu