From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH Remus v5 1/2] libxc/save: implement Remus
 checkpointed save
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 09:29:00 +0100
Message-ID: <5555AE4C.5070908@citrix.com>
References: <1431597974-15624-1-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>	
	<1431597974-15624-2-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<1431607637.13579.73.camel@citrix.com>
	<55555601.90409@cn.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <55555601.90409@cn.fujitsu.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, yunhong.jiang@intel.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, rshriram@cs.ubc.ca
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 15/05/2015 03:12, Yang Hongyang wrote:
>
>>> @@ -467,6 +477,14 @@ static int send_domain_memory_live(struct
>>> xc_sr_context *ctx)
>>>       DECLARE_HYPERCALL_BUFFER_SHADOW(unsigned long, dirty_bitmap,
>>>                                       &ctx->save.dirty_bitmap_hbuf);
>>>
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * With Remus, we will enter checkpointed save after live
>>> migration.
>>> +     * In checkpointed save loop, we skip the live part and pause
>>> straight
>>> +     * away to send dirty pages between checkpoints.
>>> +     */
>>> +    if ( !ctx->save.live )
>>> +        goto last_iter;
>>
>> Rather than use goto would it work to refactor everything from here to
>> the label into some sort of helper and just call that in the "actually
>> live" case?
>>
>> Or perhaps everything from the label to the end should be a helper
>> function which the caller can also use in thecheckpoint case instead of
>> calling send_domain_memory_live (and which s_d_m_l also calls of
>> course).
>
> I'm going to refactor the send_domain_memory_live() as follows:
>
> split the send_domain_memory_live() into three helper function:
>   - send_memory_live()  do the actually live case
>   - suspend_and_send_dirty() suspend the guest and send dirty pages
>   - send_memory_verify()
>
> then:
>   - send_domain_memory_live() combination of those three helper functions
>   - send_domain_momory_checkpointed() calls suspend_and_send_dirty() and
>                                       send_memory_verify()
>   - send_domain_memory_nonlive() stay as it is
> Does it make sense?

verify mode is only a debugging tool, and shouldn't be used in general. 
(It is actually a lot less useful in retrospect than one would imagine.)

However, the rest of the split looks plausible.

~Andrew