[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of d
From: |
Peter Xu |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming |
Date: |
Fri, 19 May 2023 11:33:49 -0400 |
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:30:31AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:34:57AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > On Friday, May 19, 2023 3:20 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:00:26AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > qemu_start_incoming_migration needs to check the number of multifd
> > > > channels or postcopy ram channels to configure the backlog parameter
> > > > (i.e.
> > > > the maximum length to which the queue of pending connections for
> > > > sockfd may grow) of listen(). So multifd and postcopy-preempt caps
> > > > require the use of deferred incoming, that is, calling
> > > > qemu_start_incoming_migration should be deferred via qmp or hmp
> > > > commands after the cap of multifd and postcopy-preempt are configured.
> > > >
> > > > Check if deferred incoming is used when enabling multifd or
> > > > postcopy-preempt, and fail the check with error messages if not.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
> > >
> > > IIUC this will unfortunately break things like:
> > >
> > > -global migration.x-postcopy-preempt=on
> > >
> > > where the cap is actually applied before incoming starts even with !defer
> > > so
> > > it should still work.
> >
> > Actually the patch doesn’t check "!defer". It just checks if incoming has
> > been started
> > or not. It allows the 2 caps to be set only before incoming starts. So I
> > think the above
> > should work.
>
> Ah yes indeed it keeps working, because we apply -global bits before setup
> sockets. Then it's fine by me since that's the only thing I would still
> like to keep it working. :)
>
> If so, can we reword the error message a bit? Obviously as you said we're
> not really checking against -defer, but established channels. The problem
> is if something is established without knowing multifd being there it may
> not work for multifd or preempt, not strictly about defer.
>
> How about:
>
> "Multifd/Preempt-Mode cannot be modified if incoming channel has setup"
>
> ?
We may also want to trap the channel setups on num:
migrate_params_test_apply():
if (params->has_multifd_channels) {
dest->multifd_channels = params->multifd_channels;
}
--
Peter Xu
- [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Wei Wang, 2023/05/18
- Re: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Peter Xu, 2023/05/18
- RE: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Wang, Wei W, 2023/05/18
- Re: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Peter Xu, 2023/05/19
- Re: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming,
Peter Xu <=
- RE: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Wang, Wei W, 2023/05/19
- Re: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Peter Xu, 2023/05/22
- RE: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Wang, Wei W, 2023/05/22
- Re: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Peter Xu, 2023/05/23
- RE: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Wang, Wei W, 2023/05/23
- Re: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Peter Xu, 2023/05/23
- RE: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Wang, Wei W, 2023/05/23
Re: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2023/05/19