Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] Inter-VM shared memory PCI device

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

 



On 05/11/2010 11:39 AM, Cam Macdonell wrote:

Most of the people I hear from who are using my patch are using a peer
model to share data between applications (simulations, JVMs, etc).
But guest-to-host applications work as well of course.

I think "transparent migration" can be achieved by making the
connected/disconnected state transparent to the application.

When using the shared memory server, the server has to be setup anyway
on the new host and copying the memory region could be part of that as
well if the application needs the contents preserved.  I don't think
it has to be handled by the savevm/loadvm operations.  There's little
difference between naming one VM the master or letting the shared
memory server act like a master.

Except that to make it work with the shared memory server, you need the server to participate in the live migration protocol which is something I'd prefer to avoid at it introduces additional down time.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

I think abstractions on top of shared memory could handle
disconnection issues (sort of how TCP handles them for networks) if
the application needs it.  Again, my opinion is to leave it to the
application to decide what it necessary.

Cam

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux