Re: [PATCH] qemu: add support for qemu switchover-ack

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

 




> On Jun 20, 2024, at 4:30 AM, Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> !-------------------------------------------------------------------|
>  CAUTION: External Email
> 
> |-------------------------------------------------------------------!
> 
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 16:14:29 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 08:06:06AM -0700, Jon Kohler wrote:
>>> diff --git a/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h b/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h
>>> index 2f5b01bbfe..9543629f30 100644
>>> --- a/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h
>>> +++ b/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h
>>> @@ -1100,6 +1100,17 @@ typedef enum {
>>>      * Since: 8.5.0
>>>      */
>>>     VIR_MIGRATE_ZEROCOPY = (1 << 20),
>>> +
>>> +    /* Use switchover ack migration capability to reduce downtime on VFIO
>>> +     * device migration. This prevents the source from stopping the VM and
>>> +     * completing the migration until an ACK is received from the destination
>>> +     * that it's OK to do so. Thus, a VFIO device can make sure that its
>>> +     * initial bytes were sent and loaded in the destination before the
>>> +     * source VM is stopped.
>>> +     *
>>> +     * Since: 10.5.0
>>> +     */
>>> +    VIR_MIGRATE_SWITCHOVER_ACK = (1 << 21),
>>> } virDomainMigrateFlags;
>> 
>> Do we really need a flag for this ?  Is there a credible scenario
>> in which this flag works, and yet shouldn't be used by libvirt ?
>> 
>> IOW, can we just "do the right thing" and always enable this,
>> except for TUNNELLED mode.
> 
> I discussed this capability some time ago with Peter (I think) and if
> IIRC there was some downside when the capability is enabled for domains
> that do not use VFIO. I don't remember exactly what it was about, but
> perhaps introducing an extra delay in migration switchover? Peter, can
> you add the details, please?

Thanks - @Peter, if you have additional info on that, would love to know
what the non-VFIO downsides are here. 
> 
> That said, I think we should be able to do the right thing anyway and
> enable this capability only for domains that use VFIO.

Ok, I’ll see what I can cook up in a v2 patch with this as the direction.

> 
> Jirka
> 





[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