From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51612) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhiYT-0007Zl-3T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:21:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhiYL-0008VI-Iy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:21:37 -0400 Received: from mail-by2on0121.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([207.46.100.121]:27552 helo=na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhiYL-0008V8-8i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:21:29 -0400 From: Gary Hook Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:48:42 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D06FED192177garyhooknimboxxcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Qemu-devel] Postcopy failures List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" --_000_D06FED192177garyhooknimboxxcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I see this went by: Il 07/10/2014 12:29, Dr. David Alan Gilbert ha scritto: > You mean something like this (untested) ? > > if (mis->postcopy_ram_state !=3D POSTCOPY_RAM_INCOMING_NONE) { > if (mis->postcopy_ram_state =3D=3D POSTCOPY_RAM_INCOMING_ADVISE) { > /* > * Where a migration had postcopy enabled (and thus went to adv= ise) > * but managed to complete within the precopy period > */ > postcopy_ram_incoming_cleanup(mis); > } else if (ret >=3D 0) { > /* > * Postcopy was started, cleanup should happen at the end of t= he > * postcopy thread. > */ > DPRINTF("process_incoming_migration_co: exiting main branch"); > return; > } > } And I wonder if this will solve the problem of a peer-to-peer migration, us= ing non-shared storage, failing because it appears to take a bit too lon? I= see in other threads Dr. Gilbert is making changes related to post copy an= d I am very interested in getting resolution to what appears to be a timeou= t problem. Any comments would be appreciated by this newbie to Qemu. --_000_D06FED192177garyhooknimboxxcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4829B086FFA60F4A980170604F7743D6@namprd02.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I see this went by:

Il 07/10/2014 12:29, Dr. David Alan Gilbert ha scritto:
> You mean something like this (untested) ?
>=20
>   if (mis->postcopy_ram_state !=3D POSTCOPY_RAM_INCOMING_NONE) {
>       if (mis->postcopy_ram_state =3D=3D POSTCOPY_RAM_INCOMING_ADVI=
SE) {
>           /*
>            * Where a migration had postcopy enabled (and thus went to =
advise)
>            * but managed to complete within the precopy period
>            */
>           postcopy_ram_incoming_cleanup(mis);
>       } else if (ret >=3D 0) {
>            /*
>             * Postcopy was started, cleanup should happen at the end o=
f the
>             * postcopy thread.
>             */
>            DPRINTF("process_incoming_migration_co: exiting main b=
ranch");
>            return;
>       }
>   }

And I wonder if this will solve the problem of a peer-to-peer migration=
, using non-shared storage, failing because it appears to take a bit too lo=
n? I see in other threads Dr. Gilbert is making changes related to post cop=
y and I am very interested in getting resolution to what appears to be a ti=
meout problem.

Any comments would be appreciated by=
 this newbie to Qemu.

--_000_D06FED192177garyhooknimboxxcom_--