From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC]VM live snapshot proposal
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:54:56 +0100
Message-ID: <20140304085456.GD25676@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
References: <615092B2FD0E7648B6E4B43E029BCFB84D578044@SZXEMA503-MBS.china.huawei.com>
 <20140303123234.GC21055@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
 <615092B2FD0E7648B6E4B43E029BCFB84D5794D0@SZXEMA503-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"kwolf@redhat.com" <kwolf@redhat.com>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	Wenchao Xia <xiawenc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Pavel Hrdina <phrdina@redhat.com>,
	KVM devel mailing list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Zhanghailiang <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
To: "Huangpeng (Peter)" <peter.huangpeng@huawei.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:44020 "EHLO
	mail-ee0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756363AbaCDIzA (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:55:00 -0500
Received: by mail-ee0-f46.google.com with SMTP id t10so1810121eei.19
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <615092B2FD0E7648B6E4B43E029BCFB84D5794D0@SZXEMA503-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 01:02:44AM +0000, Huangpeng (Peter) wrote:
> > But back to the options:
> > 
> > If the host has enough free memory to fork QEMU, a small helper process can
> > be used to save the copy-on-write memory snapshot (thanks to fork(2)
> > semantics).  The hard part about the fork(2) approach is that QEMU isn't
> > really designed to fork, so work is necessary to reach a quiescent state for the
> > child process.
> > 
> > If there is not enough memory to fork, then a synchronous approach to
> > catching guest memory writes is needed.  I'm not sure if a good mechanism
> > for that exists but the simplest would be mprotect(2) and a signal handler
> > (which will make the guest run very slowly).
> > 
> > Stefan
> 
> In real production environment, memory over-commit or use as much memory as
> possible may be the normal case, so the fork semantics cannot meet the needs.  

Yes, I think you're right.  The fork approach only works in the easy
case where there is plenty of free host memory.

> Is there any other proposals to implement vm-snapshot?

See the discussion by Paolo and Andrea about post-copy migration, which
adds kernel memory management features for tracking userspace page
faults.  Perhaps you can use that infrastructure to trap guest writes.

Stefan