From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44533) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d04T2-00038e-8Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:05:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d04Sz-0004yM-3T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:05:12 -0400 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.189]:3378 helo=dggrg03-dlp.huawei.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d04Sy-0004oN-Hn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:05:09 -0400 References: <1487734936-43472-1-git-send-email-zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com> <1487734936-43472-3-git-send-email-zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com> <134776c2-a85d-d06f-5f98-2e664f9c8ca9@cn.fujitsu.com> <58F06AA1.2010301@huawei.com> <9b42232a-e86f-2d61-7987-7a0559d6f705@redhat.com> From: Hailiang Zhang Message-ID: <58F4A12C.5070404@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:04:12 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9b42232a-e86f-2d61-7987-7a0559d6f705@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/15] colo-compare: implement the process of checkpoint List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jason Wang , Zhang Chen , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: xuquan8@huawei.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com, xiecl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Hi Jason, On 2017/4/14 14:38, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2017年04月14日 14:22, Hailiang Zhang wrote: >> Hi Jason, >> >> On 2017/4/14 13:57, Jason Wang wrote: >>> On 2017年02月22日 17:31, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>> On 02/22/2017 11:42 AM, zhanghailiang wrote: >>>>> While do checkpoint, we need to flush all the unhandled packets, >>>>> By using the filter notifier mechanism, we can easily to notify >>>>> every compare object to do this process, which runs inside >>>>> of compare threads as a coroutine. >>>> Hi~ Jason and Hailiang. >>>> >>>> I will send a patch set later about colo-compare notify mechanism for >>>> Xen like this patch. >>>> I want to add a new chardev socket way in colo-comapre connect to Xen >>>> colo, for notify >>>> checkpoint or failover, Because We have no choice to use this way >>>> communicate with Xen codes. >>>> That's means we will have two notify mechanism. >>>> What do you think about this? >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Zhang Chen >>> I was thinking the possibility of using similar way to for colo compare. >>> E.g can we use socket? This can saves duplicated codes more or less. >> Since there are too many sockets used by filter and COLO, (Two unix >> sockets and two >> tcp sockets for each vNIC), I don't want to introduce more ;) , but >> i'm not sure if it is >> possible to make it more flexible and optional, abstract these >> duplicated codes, >> pass the opened fd (No matter eventfd or socket fd ) as parameter, for >> example. >> Is this way acceptable ? >> >> Thanks, >> Hailiang > Yes, that's kind of what I want. We don't want to use two message > format. Passing a opened fd need management support, we still need a > fallback if there's no management on top. For qemu/kvm, we can do all > stuffs transparent to the cli by e.g socketpair() or others, but the key > is to have a unified message format. After a deeper investigation, i think we can re-use most codes, since there is no existing way to notify xen (no ?), we still needs notify chardev socket (Be used to notify xen, it is optional.) (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/733431/ "COLO-compare: Add Xen notify chardev socket handler frame") Besides, there is an existing qmp comand 'xen-colo-do-checkpoint', we can re-use it to notify colo-compare objects and other filter objects to do checkpoint, for the opposite direction, we use the notify chardev socket (Only for xen). So the codes will be like: diff --git a/migration/colo.c b/migration/colo.c index 91da936..813c281 100644 --- a/migration/colo.c +++ b/migration/colo.c @@ -224,7 +224,19 @@ ReplicationStatus *qmp_query_xen_replication_status(Error **errp) void qmp_xen_colo_do_checkpoint(Error **errp) { + Error *local_err = NULL; + replication_do_checkpoint_all(errp); + /* Notify colo-compare and other filters to do checkpoint */ + colo_notify_compares_event(NULL, COLO_CHECKPOINT, &local_err); + if (local_err) { + error_propagate(errp, local_err); + return; + } + colo_notify_filters_event(COLO_CHECKPOINT, &local_err); + if (local_err) { + error_propagate(errp, local_err); + } } static void colo_send_message(QEMUFile *f, COLOMessage msg, diff --git a/net/colo-compare.c b/net/colo-compare.c index 24e13f0..de975c5 100644 --- a/net/colo-compare.c +++ b/net/colo-compare.c @@ -391,6 +391,9 @@ static void colo_compare_inconsistent_notify(void) { notifier_list_notify(&colo_compare_notifiers, migrate_get_current()); + if (s->notify_dev) { + /* Do something, notify remote side through notify dev */ + } } void colo_compare_register_notifier(Notifier *notify) How about this scenario ？ > Thoughts? > > Thanks > >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> . >>> >> > > . >