From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37534) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpIYc-0006Xu-NL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:17:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpIYX-0001Uh-Oe for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:17:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45113) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpIYX-0001Uc-JN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:17:33 -0400 Message-ID: <1445530650.5050.19.camel@redhat.com> From: Alex Williamson Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:17:30 -0600 In-Reply-To: References: <1445445464-5056-1-git-send-email-tianyu.lan@intel.com> <1445455227.4059.867.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC Patch 00/12] IXGBE: Add live migration support for SRIOV NIC List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Or Gerlitz Cc: emil.s.tantilov@intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin (mst@redhat.com)" , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Jesse Brandeburg , carolyn.wyborny@intel.com, "Skidmore, Donald C" , Alexander Graf , matthew.vick@intel.com, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, Jeff Kirsher , yang.z.zhang@intel.com, Mitch Williams , nrupal.jani@intel.com, Bjorn Helgaas , Lan Tianyu , Linux Netdev List , Shannon Nelson , eddie.dong@intel.com, Linux Kernel , john.ronciak@intel.com, Paolo Bonzini On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 18:58 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Alex Williamson > wrote: > > > This is why the typical VF agnostic approach here is to using bonding > > and fail over to a emulated device during migration, so performance > > suffers, but downtime is something acceptable. > > bonding in the VM isn't a zero touch solution, right? is it really acceptable? The bonding solution requires configuring the bond in the guest and doing the hot unplug/re-plug around migration. It's zero touch in that it works on current code with any PF/VF, but it's certainly not zero configuration in the guest. Is what acceptable? The configuration? The performance? The downtime? I don't think we can hope to improve on the downtime of an emulated device, but obviously the configuration and performance are not always acceptable or we wouldn't be seeing so many people working on migration of assigned devices. Thanks, Alex