Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21][RFC] postcopy live migration

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Orit Wasserman <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 12/30/2011 12:39 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 12/28/2011 07:25 PM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
>>> Intro
>>> =====
>>> This patch series implements postcopy live migration.[1]
>>> As discussed at KVM forum 2011, dedicated character device is used for
>>> distributed shared memory between migration source and destination.
>>> Now we can discuss/benchmark/compare with precopy. I believe there are
>>> much rooms for improvement.
>>>
>>> [1] http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/PostCopyLiveMigration
>>>
>>>
>>> Usage
>>> =====
>>> You need load umem character device on the host before starting migration.
>>> Postcopy can be used for tcg and kvm accelarator. The implementation depend
>>> on only linux umem character device. But the driver dependent code is split
>>> into a file.
>>> I tested only host page size == guest page size case, but the implementation
>>> allows host page size != guest page size case.
>>>
>>> The following options are added with this patch series.
>>> - incoming part
>>>    command line options
>>>    -postcopy [-postcopy-flags<flags>]
>>>    where flags is for changing behavior for benchmark/debugging
>>>    Currently the following flags are available
>>>    0: default
>>>    1: enable touching page request
>>>
>>>    example:
>>>    qemu -postcopy -incoming tcp:0:4444 -monitor stdio -machine accel=kvm
>>>
>>> - outging part
>>>    options for migrate command
>>>    migrate [-p [-n]] URI
>>>    -p: indicate postcopy migration
>>>    -n: disable background transferring pages: This is for 
>>> benchmark/debugging
>>>
>>>    example:
>>>    migrate -p -n tcp:<dest ip address>:4444
>>>
>>>
>>> TODO
>>> ====
>>> - benchmark/evaluation. Especially how async page fault affects the result.
>>
>> I'll review this series next week (Mike/Juan, please also review when you 
>> can).
>>
>> But we really need to think hard about whether this is the right thing to 
>> take into the tree.  I worry a lot about the fact that we don't test 
>> pre-copy migration nearly enough and adding a second form just introduces 
>> more things to test.
>>
>> It's also not clear to me why post-copy is better.  If you were going to sit 
>> down and explain to someone building a management tool when they should use 
>> pre-copy and when they should use post-copy, what would you tell them?
>
> Start with pre-copy , if it doesn't converge switch to post-copy

Post-copy throttles the guest when page faults are encountered because
the destination machine waits for memory pages from the source
machine.  Is there a reason this page fault-based throttling cannot be
done on the source machine with pre-copy migration?  I'm not sure
post-copy provides new behavior in terms of convergence, we could do
the same with pre-copy migration.

Post-copy has other advantages though, it immediately frees logical
CPUs on the source machine (though RAM and network bandwidth is still
required until migration completes).

Stefan