From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58754) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eKnNu-0000w8-Dm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:38:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eKnNc-0003SA-2V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:37:48 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8092) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eKnNb-0003NN-5B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:37:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:49:44 +0000 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Message-ID: <20171201104943.GA3101@work-vm> References: <20171108060130.3772-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20171108060130.3772-6-peterx@redhat.com> <20171130104945.GB2248@work-vm> <20171201085635.GD2712@xz-mi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171201085635.GD2712@xz-mi> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 05/32] migration: implement "postcopy-pause" src logic List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Xu Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexey Perevalov , "Daniel P . Berrange" , Juan Quintela , Andrea Arcangeli * Peter Xu (peterx@redhat.com) wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:49:45AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > * Peter Xu (peterx@redhat.com) wrote: > > > Now when network down for postcopy, the source side will not fail the > > > migration. Instead we convert the status into this new paused state, and > > > we will try to wait for a rescue in the future. > > > > > > If a recovery is detected, migration_thread() will reset its local > > > variables to prepare for that. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert > > > > That's still OK; you might want to consider reusing the 'pause_sem' that I > > added to MigrationStatus for the other pause case. > > Yes I can. I am just a bit worried about how these two different > features cross-affect each other. Say, what if something tries to > execute "migrate-continue" during a postcopy network failure? IMHO it > should not be allowed, but we don't yet have a protection so far. > > So I would prefer to still separate these two semaphores. Yes, that's fair enough; the semantics might be different enough that they don't quite fit - but worth keeping in mind. > Though I found that I can move init/destroy of the two new semaphores > (postcopy_pause_sem, postcopy_pause_rp_sem) into object init/destroy > just like what we did for pause_sem, which seems to be cleaner. I > hope I can still keep your r-b if I do that small change. Thanks, Yes, I think that's OK. Dave > -- > Peter Xu -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK