On 05/13/2015 10:02 PM, Chen Fan wrote:
>
> On 05/13/2015 10:30 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
>> On 05/13/2015 05:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:36:30AM +0800, Chen Fan wrote:
>>>> add migration support for ephemeral host devices, introduce
>>>> two 'detach' and 'restore' functions to unplug/plug host devices
>>>> during migration.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> src/qemu/qemu_migration.c | 171
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>> src/qemu/qemu_migration.h | 9 +++
>>>> src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 11 +++
>>>> 3 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_migration.c b/src/qemu/qemu_migration.c
>>>> index 56112f9..d5a698f 100644
>>>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_migration.c
>>>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_migration.c
>>>> +void
>>>> +qemuMigrationRestoreEphemeralDevices(virQEMUDriverPtr driver,
>>>> + virConnectPtr conn,
>>>> + virDomainObjPtr vm,
>>>> + bool live)
>>>> +{
>>>> + qemuDomainObjPrivatePtr priv = vm->privateData;
>>>> + virDomainDeviceDefPtr dev;
>>>> + int ret = -1;
>>>> + size_t i;
>>>> +
>>>> + VIR_DEBUG("Rum domain restore ephemeral devices");
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < priv->nEphemeralDevices; i++) {
>>>> + dev = priv->ephemeralDevices[i];
>>>> +
>>>> + switch ((virDomainDeviceType) dev->type) {
>>>> + case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_NET:
>>>> + if (live) {
>>>> + ret = qemuDomainAttachNetDevice(conn, driver, vm,
>>>> + dev->data.net);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + ret = virDomainNetInsert(vm->def, dev->data.net);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!ret)
>>>> + dev->data.net = NULL;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_HOSTDEV:
>>>> + if (live) {
>>>> + ret = qemuDomainAttachHostDevice(conn, driver, vm,
>>>> + dev->data.hostdev);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + ret =virDomainHostdevInsert(vm->def,
>>>> dev->data.hostdev);
>>>> + }
>>> This re-attach step is where we actually have far far far worse
>>> problems
>>> than with detach. This is blindly assuming that the guest on the target
>>> host can use the same hostdev that it was using on the source host.
>> (kind of pointless to comment on, since pkrempa has changed my opinion
>> by forcing me to think about the "failure to reattach" condition, but
>> could be useful info for others)
>>
>> For a <hostdev>, yes, but not for <interface type='network'> (which
>> would point to a libvirt network pool of VFs).
>>
>>> This
>>> is essentially useless in the real world.
>> Agreed (for plain <hostdev>)
>>
>>> Even if the same vendor/model
>>> device is available on the target host, it is very unlikely to be
>>> available
>>> at the same bus/slot/function that it was on the source. It is quite
>>> likely
>>> neccessary to allocate a complete different NIC, or if using SRIOV
>>> allocate
>>> a different function. It is also not uncommon to have different
>>> vendor/models,
>>> so a completely different NIC may be required.
>> In the case of a network device, a different brand/model of NIC at a
>> different PCI address using a different guest driver shouldn't be a
>> problem for the guest, as long as the MAC address is the same (for a
>> Linux guest anyway; not sure what a Windows guest would do with a NIC
>> that had the same MAC but used a different driver). This points out the
>> folly of trying to do migration with attached hostdevs (managed at *any*
>> level), for anything other than SRIOV VFs (which can have their MAC
>> address set before attach, unlike non-SRIOV NICs).
>>
>> .
> So should we focus on implementing the feature that support migration
> with SRIOV
> VFs at first?
Not "at first", but "only". Adding the requirement of dealing properly
with MAC address change to the guest adds a lot of complexity to that
code with not much real gain.
And based on my newfound realization of the horrible situation that
would be created by a failure to re-attach after migration was complete
(see my response to Peter Krempa yesterday), I now agree with Dan that
this shouldn't be implemented in libvirt, but in the higher level
management, which will be able to more easily/realistically deal with
such a failure.
(and by the way, I think I should apologize for leading you down the
road of the ephemeral patches in response to your earlier RFC. If only
I'd fully considered the post-migration re-attach failure case, and the
difficulty libvirt would have recovering from that prior to Peter
pointing it out so eloquently yesterday :-/)
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list