[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration
From: |
Michael S. Tsirkin |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration |
Date: |
Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:19:01 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 01:42:59AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 02/08/2011 12:42 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:23:08PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 02/07/2011 03:52 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>How does it? We need to know we are saving in 0.13
> >>>format and skip the new subsection, otherwise
> >>>0.13 will see a subsection it does not recognize
> >>>and exit.
> >>If you used subsections for flow control, presumably you would only
> >>send the new savevm data if you had data buffered.
> >>
> >>If you add a qdev property to enable/disable flow control, then if
> >>it's disabled, you naturally would never send the subsection because
> >>you'd never buffer data. So no explicit code is needed to support
> >>migration.
> >But the result is we get a new property that we can never remove
> >as any qdev property is part of interface.
> >
> >>The difficult case is when you truly need to change the savevm
> >>version. I don't think we have a proper fix for this because
> >>versions are linear so the proposed patch certainly wouldn't be a
> >>good way to do it. if flow_control=0 causes savevm 3 to be used
> >>instead of 4, and then the next_feature=0 causes savevm 4 to be used
> >>instead of 5, the semantics of flow_control=0,next_feature=1 becomes
> >>problematic.
> >>
> >>But as long as the feature has isolated state, we can solve the
> >>problem robustly with subsections.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Anthony Liguori
> >I see. I'm unhappy with the facts that
> >1. if (feature) is spread all over the code instead
> > of just in migration
>
> Yeah, but it's no different than say msi enablement.
I think it's different, some guests might have bad support for msi,
so ability to disable it in qemu is useful.
> >2. it is also obfuscated with if (flow_control)
> > instead of plain if (migrate to qemu< 0.14)
> > so removing it will be much harder
> >3. this forces anyone who wants
> > a VM compatible with qemu 0.13 to also lose data,
> > even if migration to 0.13 is never attempted.
>
> It depends on whether we consider flow control a feature or a bug.
> If it's a bug, then we have to bump the live migration version and
> then live with the compatibility breakage.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
I'm not sure. I don't see how it's useful to drop frames but maybe I'm wrong.
Amit?
>
> >>>We also need API to add subsections without vmstate,
> >>>because virtio serial wasn't yet converted.
> >>>
- [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration, (continued)
- [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration, Anthony Liguori, 2011/02/07
- [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2011/02/07
- [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration, Anthony Liguori, 2011/02/07
- [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2011/02/07
- [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration, Anthony Liguori, 2011/02/07
- [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2011/02/08
- [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration, Amit Shah, 2011/02/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration, Anthony Liguori, 2011/02/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration, Amit Shah, 2011/02/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration, Anthony Liguori, 2011/02/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: new->old version migration,
Michael S. Tsirkin <=