qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] UFFD write-tracking migration/snapshots


From: Andrey Gruzdev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] UFFD write-tracking migration/snapshots
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 23:11:44 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0

On 01.12.2020 21:40, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Andrey Gruzdev (andrey.gruzdev@virtuozzo.com) wrote:
On 01.12.2020 13:53, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:42:18 +0300, Andrey Gruzdev wrote:
On 01.12.2020 10:08, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 18:17:28 +0300, Andrey Gruzdev via wrote:
This patch series is a kind of 'rethinking' of Denis Plotnikov's ideas he's

[...]

Note that in cases when qemu can't guarantee that the
background_snapshot feature will work it should not advertise it. We
need a way to check whether it's possible to use it, so we can replace
the existing --live flag with it rather than adding a new one and
shifting the problem of checking whether the feature works to the user.


Hi,

May be you are using hugetlbfs as memory backend?

Not exactly hugepages, but I had:

    <memoryBacking>
      <access mode='shared'/>
    </memoryBacking>

which resulted into the following commandline to instantiate memory:

-object 
memory-backend-file,id=pc.ram,mem-path=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/ram/6-upstream-bj/pc.ram,share=yes,size=33554432000,host-nodes=0,policy=bind
 \

When I've removed it I got:

-object memory-backend-ram,id=pc.ram,size=33554432000,host-nodes=0,policy=bind \

And the migration didn't fail in my quick test. I'll have a more
detailed look later, thanks for the pointer.


Yep, seems that current userfaultfd supports hugetlbfs and shared memory for
missing pages but not for wr-protected..

For hugepages, you'd need kernel support - but also you'd want to make
sure you write the whole hugepage at once.

For shared, there's a harder problem to ask; what happens if RAM is
written by the other process - for postcopy, we get the other process
to send us a userfaultfd that they have registered with their VM.

Dave


Yep. May be problematic. But if used for vhost-user external backend - seems it should work.

I totally agree that we need somehow check that kernel and VM memory backend
support the feature before one can enable the capability.
Need to think about that..

Definitely. Also note that memory backed by memory-backend-file will be
more and more common, for cases such as virtiofs DAX sharing and
similar.


I see.. That needs support from kernel side, so far 'background-snapshots'
are incompatible with memory-backend-file sharing.

--
Andrey Gruzdev, Principal Engineer
Virtuozzo GmbH  +7-903-247-6397
                 virtuzzo.com



--
Andrey Gruzdev, Principal Engineer
Virtuozzo GmbH  +7-903-247-6397
                virtuzzo.com



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]