Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/8] virtio: add subsections to the migration stream

[Greg Kurz]

On Thu, 15 May 2014 13:12:12 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:08:26PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:20:18 +0200
> > Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Am 15.05.2014 09:04, schrieb Greg Kurz:
> > > > On Thu, 15 May 2014 12:16:35 +0530
> > > > Amit Shah <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > >> On (Thu) 15 May 2014 [09:23:51], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > >>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:34:25AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > >>>> On (Wed) 14 May 2014 [17:41:38], Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > >>>>> Since each virtio device is streamed in its own section, the idea 
> > > >>>>> is to
> > > >>>>> stream subsections between the end of the device section and the 
> > > >>>>> start
> > > >>>>> of the next sections. This allows an older QEMU to complain and exit
> > > >>>>> when fed with subsections:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Unknown savevm section type 5
> > > >>>>> Error -22 while loading VM state
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Please make this configurable -- either via configure or device
> > > >>>> properties.  That avoids having to break existing configurations that
> > > >>>> work without this patch.
> > > 
> > > Since backwards migration is not supported upstream, wouldn't it be
> > > easiest to just add support for the subsection marker and skipping to
> > > the end of section in that downstream?
> > > 
> > 
> > Not sure I understand well... Do you suggest to stream the markers first,
> > then the device, then the subsections ? And then there would be a way
> > we can have the subsections restored before the device ?
> > 
> > > >>>>> All users of virtio_load()/virtio_save() need to be patched because 
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>> subsections are streamed AFTER the device itself.
> > > 
> > > IMO this is calling for inversion of control - i.e. let virtio devices
> > > call generic load/save functions that then dispatch to device-specific
> > > code and let us add common stuff in a central place without forgetting
> > > to add calls in some new device.
> > > 
> > 
> > That makes a lot of sense.
> > 
> > > >>>> Since all have the same fixup, I'm wondering if a new section can be
> > > >>>> added to the virtio-bus itself, which gets propagated to all devices
> > > >>>> upon load in the dest.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This calls for a way for devices to inherit properties from the bus,
> > > >>> which doesn't exist ATM.
> > > >>> Fine but let's not hold up this patchset because of this.
> > > >>
> > > >> No, only suggestion is to add a migration section in the bus, and then
> > > >> it's easier to do this in the post-migrate functions for each device
> > > >> -- so only one new section gets introduced instead of all devices
> > > >> being modified to send a new subsection.
> > > >>
> > > > 
> > > > The main problem I see is that virtio sucks: as you see in patch 8, we 
> > > > have
> > > > to be careful not to call vring or virtqueue stuff before the device 
> > > > knows
> > > > its endianness or it breaks... I need to study how the virtio-bus gets
> > > > migrated to ensure the endian section is streamed before the devices.
> > > 
> > > There is no ordering guarantee. The state needs to be migrated in the
> > > device or bus where it sits, if post-load processing is required; i.e.,
> > > if it's in VirtIODevice then something like this series, if it were on
> > > VirtioBus exclusively (device asking bus for its endianness each time
> > > and does not do post-load stuff) then endianness could be migrated as a
> > > new bus section. Not sure if that would help the "broken" state though?
> > > 
> > 
> > IIRW the "broken" state was proposed as a per-device property...
> > 
> > Fam,
> > 
> > Do you have plans about the "broken" property ? Is it still needed ?
> > 
> > > Would touch on Stefan's alias properties for anything but virtio-mmio.
> > > 
> > 
> > OMG... maybe I should hold on then.
> 
> No need to wait imho.
> Can this be made even simpler - call this stuff
> from virtio_save/virtio_load?
> 

Andreas already suggested this inversion of control.

> Why not?
> 

No reason indeed. I'll rewrite the code that way ! :)

> 
> > > Regards,
> > > Andreas
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks !
> > 
> > -- 
> > Gregory Kurz                                     address@hidden
> >                                                  address@hidden
> > Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys                  http://www.ibm.com
> > Tel +33 (0)562 165 496
> > 
> > "Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself."
> >         Alan Moore.
> 

Thnaks !

-- 
Gregory Kurz                                     address@hidden
                                                 address@hidden
Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys                  http://www.ibm.com
Tel +33 (0)562 165 496

"Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself."
        Alan Moore.