Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: flush the bdrv before stopping VM

[Li, Liang Z]

> > >> >> > Right now, we don't have an interface to detect that cases and
> > >> >> > got back to the iterative stage.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> How about go back to the iterative stage when detect that the
> > >> >> pending_size is larger Than max_size, like this:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> +                /* do flush here is aimed to shorten the VM downtime,
> > >> >> +                 * bdrv_flush_all is a time consuming operation
> > >> >> +                 * when the guest has done some file writing */
> > >> >> +                bdrv_flush_all();
> > >> >> +                pending_size = qemu_savevm_state_pending(s->file,
> max_size);
> > >> >> +                if (pending_size && pending_size >= max_size) {
> > >> >> +                    qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
> > >> >> +                    continue;
> > >> >> +                }
> > >> >>                   ret = vm_stop_force_state(RUN_STATE_FINISH_MIGRATE);
> > >> >>                   if (ret >= 0) {
> > >> >>                       qemu_file_set_rate_limit(s->file,
> > >> >> INT64_MAX);
> > >> >>
> > >> >> and this is quite simple.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, but it is too simple. If you hold all the locks during
> > >> > bdrv_flush_all(), your VM will effectively stop as soon as it
> > >> > performs the next I/O access, so you don't win much. And you
> > >> > still don't have a timeout for cases where the flush takes really long.
> > >>
> > >> This is probably better than what we had now (basically we are
> "meassuring"
> > >> after bdrv_flush_all how much the amount of dirty memory has
> > >> changed, and return to iterative stage if it took too much.  A
> > >> timeout would be better anyways.  And an interface te start the
> > >> synchronization sooner asynchronously would be also good.
> > >>
> > >> Notice that my understanding is that any proper fix for this is 2.4
> material.
> > >
> > > Then, how to deal with this issue in 2.3, leave it here? or make an
> > > incomplete fix like I do above?
> >
> > I think it is better to leave it here for 2.3. With a patch like this
> > one, we improve in one load and we got worse in a different load
> > (depens a lot in the ratio of dirtying memory vs disk).  I have no
> > data which load is more common, so I prefer to be conservative so late
> > in the cycle.  What do you think?
> 
> I agree, it's too late in the release cycle for such a change.
> 
> Kevin

Hi Juan & Kevin,

I have not found the related patches to fix the issue which lead to long VM 
downtime,  how is it going?

Liang