On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 02:03:20PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 11:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 04:38:01PM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 1, 2017 11:19 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:05:54PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > > +static void ctrlq_send_cmd(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > > > > + struct virtio_balloon_ctrlq_cmd *cmd,
> > > > > + bool inbuf)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct virtqueue *vq = vb->ctrl_vq;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + ctrlq_add_cmd(vq, cmd, inbuf);
> > > > > + if (!inbuf) {
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * All the input cmd buffers are replenished here.
> > > > > + * This is necessary because the input cmd buffers are lost
> > > > > + * after live migration. The device needs to rewind all of
> > > > > + * them from the ctrl_vq.
> > > > Confused. Live migration somehow loses state? Why is that and why is it a good
> > > > idea? And how do you know this is migration even?
> > > > Looks like all you know is you got free page end. Could be any reason for this.
> > >
> > > I think this would be something that the current live migration lacks - what the
> > > device read from the vq is not transferred during live migration, an example is the
> > > stat_vq_elem:
> > > Line 476 at https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.c
> > This does not touch guest memory though it just manipulates
> > internal state to make it easier to migrate.
> > It's transparent to guest as migration should be.
> >
> > > For all the things that are added to the vq and need to be held by the device
> > > to use later need to consider the situation that live migration might happen at any
> > > time and they need to be re-taken from the vq by the device on the destination
> > > machine.
> > >
> > > So, even without this live migration optimization feature, I think all the things that are
> > > added to the vq for the device to hold, need a way for the device to rewind back from
> > > the vq - re-adding all the elements to the vq is a trick to keep a record of all of them
> > > on the vq so that the device side rewinding can work.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if anything is missed or if you have other suggestions.
> > IMO migration should pass enough data source to destination for
> > destination to continue where source left off without guest help.
> >
>
> I'm afraid it would be difficult to pass the entire VirtQueueElement to the
> destination. I think
> that would also be the reason that stats_vq_elem chose to rewind from the
> guest vq, which re-do the
> virtqueue_pop() --> virtqueue_map_desc() steps (the QEMU virtual address to
> the guest physical
> address relationship may be changed on the destination).
Yes but note how that rewind does not involve modifying the ring.
It just rolls back some indices.
>
> How about another direction which would be easier - using two 32-bit device
> specific configuration registers,
> Host2Guest and Guest2Host command registers, to replace the ctrlq for
> command exchange:
>
> The flow can be as follows:
>
> 1) Before Host sending a StartCMD, it flushes the free_page_vq in case any
> old free page hint is left there;
> 2) Host writes StartCMD to the Host2Guest register, and notifies the guest;
>
> 3) Upon receiving a configuration notification, Guest reads the Host2Guest
> register, and detaches all the used buffers from free_page_vq;
> (then for each StartCMD, the free_page_vq will always have no obsolete free
> page hints, right? )
>
> 4) Guest start report free pages:
> 4.1) Host may actively write StopCMD to the Host2Guest register before
> the guest finishes; or
> 4.2) Guest finishes reporting, write StopCMD the Guest2HOST register,
> which traps to QEMU, to stop.
>
>
> Best,
> Wei
I am not sure it matters whether a VQ or the config are used to start/stop.
But I think flushing is very fragile. You will easily run into races
if one of the actors gets out of sync and keeps adding data.
I think adding an ID in the free vq stream is a more robust
approach.
