Re: Revisiting parallel save/restore

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 05:12:27PM -0600, Jim Fehlig via Devel wrote:
>> A good starting point on this journey is supporting the new mapped-ram
>> capability in qemu 9.0 [2]. Since mapped-ram is a new on-disk format, I
>> assume we'll need a new QEMU_SAVE_VERSION 3 when using it? Otherwise I'm not
>> sure how to detect if a saved image is in mapped-ram format vs the existing,
>> sequential stream format.
>
> Yes, we'll need to be supporting 'mapped-ram', so a good first step.
>
> A question is whether we make that feature mandatory for all save images,
> or implied by another feature (parallel save), or an directly controllable
> feature with opt-in.
>
> The former breaks back compat with existnig libvirt, while the latter 2
> options are net new so don't have compat implications.
>
> In terms of actual data blocks written on disk mapped-ram should be be the
> same size, or smaller, than the existing format.
>
> In terms of logical file size, however, mapped-ram will almost always be
> larger.
>
> This is because mapped-ram will result in a file whose logical size matches
> the guest RAM size, plus some header overhead, while being sparse so not
> all blocks are written.
>
> If tools handling save images aren't sparse-aware this could come across
> as a surprise and even be considered a regression.
>
> Mapped ram is needed for parallel saves since it lets each thread write
> to a specific region of the file.
>
> Mapped ram is good for non-parallel saves too though, because the mapping
> of RAM into the file is aligned suitably to allow for O_DIRECT to be used.
> Currently libvirt has to tunnnel over its iohelper to futz alignment
> needed for O_DIRECT. This makes it desirable to use in general, but back
> compat hurts...

Note that QEMU doesn't support O_DIRECT without multifd.

>From mapped-ram patch series v4:

- Dropped support for direct-io with fixed-ram _without_ multifd. This
  is something I said I would do for this version, but I had to drop
  it because performance is really bad. I think the single-threaded
  precopy code cannot cope with the extra latency/synchronicity of
  O_DIRECT.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

  Powered by Linux