Re: [Qemu-devel] 回??: [PATCH 2/2] umem: chardevice for kvm?postcopy

[Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 03:02:00PM +0800, thfbjyddx wrote:
> Hi,
> Can you tell me the base version of the qemu?
> the postcopy patches make some conflicts on the qemu which I clone from the git

03ecd2c80a64d030a22fe67cc7a60f24e17ff211


> Thanks! 
> ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
> Tommy
>  
> From: Isaku Yamahata
> Date: 2012-01-05 20:18
> To: Tommy
> CC: t.hirofuchi; qemu-devel; kvm; satoshi.itoh
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel]回??: [PATCH 2/2] umem: chardevice for kvm postcopy
> Hmm, this sounds like you haven't specified -postcopy option at the
> incoming qemu.
> How did you start incoming qemu?
>  
>  
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 07:10:42PM +0800, Tommy wrote:
> > After I use this series of patches, but the migration failed.
> > 2, I start migrate -d -p -n tcp:xxx:4444 on the outgoing node
> > 2, on the incoming part, the qemu get stuck and migration failed
> > the  destnation can not typing any more
> >  
> >
>  today I found it's just at qemu_loadvm_state, just after the while loop ,maybe
> > in cpu_synchronize_all_post_init
> > I think there is some problems with qemu side for it doesn't get to the umem
> > part
> > I'm not sure about the problem
> > do you have some suggestion?
> > ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
> ━
> > Tommy
> >  
> > From: Isaku Yamahata
> > Date: 2012-01-05 18:48
> > To: thfbjyddx
> > CC: t.hirofuchi; qemu-devel; kvm; satoshi.itoh
> > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel]  ??: [PATCH 2/2] umem: chardevice for kvm postcopy
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 12:08:50PM +0800, thfbjyddx wrote:
> > > hi,
> > > I've tried to use this patch,
> >  
> > Oh great! Can we share your results?
> >  
> >  
> > > but it doesn't work for compiling error on
> > >  
> > >  page = alloc_page_vma(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, vma, vmf->address);//vmf->
> > > virtual_address?
> > >  
> > > I guess it's for the wrong kernel version?
> > > can you give me some detail about this or any clue?
> > > 3x 
> >  
> > Thank you for report. The following should fix.
> > It depends on kernel configuration. My config didn't catch it.
> >  
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/umem.c b/drivers/char/umem.c
> > index 4d031b5..853f1ce 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/umem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/umem.c
> > @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static int umem_minor_fault(struct umem *umem,
> >    * vmf->page = fake_vmf->page;
> >    */
> >  
> > - page = alloc_page_vma(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, vma, vmf->address);
> > + page = alloc_page_vma(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, vma, vmf->virtual_address);
> >   if (!page)
> >   return VM_FAULT_OOM;
> >   if (mem_cgroup_cache_charge(page, vma->vm_mm, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > -- 
> > yamahata
> >  
> >  
>  
> -- 
> yamahata
>  
>  

-- 
yamahata