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

Re: [libvirt] [RFC v1 4/6] migration: Migration support for ephemeral hostdevs



On 05/13/2015 10:02 PM, Chen Fan wrote:
>
> On 05/13/2015 10:30 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
>> On 05/13/2015 05:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:36:30AM +0800, Chen Fan wrote:
>>>> add migration support for ephemeral host devices, introduce
>>>> two 'detach' and 'restore' functions to unplug/plug host devices
>>>> during migration.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen fan fnst cn fujitsu com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   src/qemu/qemu_migration.c | 171
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>   src/qemu/qemu_migration.h |   9 +++
>>>>   src/qemu/qemu_process.c   |  11 +++
>>>>   3 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_migration.c b/src/qemu/qemu_migration.c
>>>> index 56112f9..d5a698f 100644
>>>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_migration.c
>>>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_migration.c
>>>> +void
>>>> +qemuMigrationRestoreEphemeralDevices(virQEMUDriverPtr driver,
>>>> +                                     virConnectPtr conn,
>>>> +                                     virDomainObjPtr vm,
>>>> +                                     bool live)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    qemuDomainObjPrivatePtr priv = vm->privateData;
>>>> +    virDomainDeviceDefPtr dev;
>>>> +    int ret = -1;
>>>> +    size_t i;
>>>> +
>>>> +    VIR_DEBUG("Rum domain restore ephemeral devices");
>>>> +
>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < priv->nEphemeralDevices; i++) {
>>>> +        dev = priv->ephemeralDevices[i];
>>>> +
>>>> +        switch ((virDomainDeviceType) dev->type) {
>>>> +        case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_NET:
>>>> +            if (live) {
>>>> +                ret = qemuDomainAttachNetDevice(conn, driver, vm,
>>>> +                                                dev->data.net);
>>>> +            } else {
>>>> +                ret = virDomainNetInsert(vm->def, dev->data.net);
>>>> +            }
>>>> +
>>>> +            if (!ret)
>>>> +                dev->data.net = NULL;
>>>> +            break;
>>>> +        case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_HOSTDEV:
>>>> +            if (live) {
>>>> +                ret = qemuDomainAttachHostDevice(conn, driver, vm,
>>>> +                                                 dev->data.hostdev);
>>>> +           } else {
>>>> +                ret =virDomainHostdevInsert(vm->def,
>>>> dev->data.hostdev);
>>>> +            }
>>> This re-attach step is where we actually have far far far worse
>>> problems
>>> than with detach. This is blindly assuming that the guest on the target
>>> host can use the same hostdev that it was using on the source host.
>> (kind of pointless to comment on, since pkrempa has changed my opinion
>> by forcing me to think about the "failure to reattach" condition, but
>> could be useful info for others)
>>
>> For a <hostdev>, yes, but not for <interface type='network'> (which
>> would point to a libvirt network pool of VFs).
>>
>>> This
>>> is essentially useless in the real world.
>> Agreed (for plain <hostdev>)
>>
>>> Even if the same vendor/model
>>> device is available on the target host, it is very unlikely to be
>>> available
>>> at the same bus/slot/function that it was on the source. It is quite
>>> likely
>>> neccessary to allocate a complete different NIC, or if using SRIOV
>>> allocate
>>> a different function. It is also not uncommon to have different
>>> vendor/models,
>>> so a completely different NIC may be required.
>> In the case of a network device, a different brand/model of NIC at a
>> different PCI address using a different guest driver shouldn't be a
>> problem for the guest, as long as the MAC address is the same (for a
>> Linux guest anyway; not sure what a Windows guest would do with a NIC
>> that had the same MAC but used a different driver). This points out the
>> folly of trying to do migration with attached hostdevs (managed at *any*
>> level), for anything other than SRIOV VFs (which can have their MAC
>> address set before attach, unlike non-SRIOV NICs).
>>
>> .
> So should we focus on implementing the feature that support migration
> with SRIOV
> VFs at first?

Not "at first", but "only". Adding the requirement of dealing properly
with MAC address change to the guest adds a lot of complexity to that
code with not much real gain.

And based on my newfound realization of the horrible situation that
would be created by a failure to re-attach after migration was complete
(see my response to Peter Krempa yesterday), I now agree with Dan that
this shouldn't be implemented in libvirt, but in the higher level
management, which will be able to more easily/realistically  deal with
such a failure.

(and by the way, I think I should apologize for leading you down the
road of the ephemeral patches in response to your earlier RFC. If only
I'd fully considered the post-migration re-attach failure case, and the
difficulty libvirt would have recovering from that prior to Peter
pointing it out so eloquently yesterday :-/)


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