From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54379) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clDAC-0003Pd-1m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 06:20:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clDAB-0001UX-1P for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 06:20:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:20:03 +0000 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Message-ID: <20170307112002.GD2869@work-vm> References: <20170225193155.447462-1-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> <20170225193155.447462-4-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> <20170307095323.GB5871@noname.str.redhat.com> <20170307110155.GH5871@noname.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170307110155.GH5871@noname.str.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/4] savevm: fix savevm after migration List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy , qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, eblake@redhat.com, famz@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, amit.shah@redhat.com, quintela@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, den@openvz.org, jsnow@redhat.com, lirans@il.ibm.com * Kevin Wolf (kwolf@redhat.com) wrote: > Am 07.03.2017 um 10:59 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: > > 07.03.2017 12:53, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > >Am 25.02.2017 um 20:31 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: > > >>After migration all drives are inactive and savevm will fail with > > >> > > >>qemu-kvm: block/io.c:1406: bdrv_co_do_pwritev: > > >> Assertion `!(bs->open_flags & 0x0800)' failed. > > >> > > >>Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy > > >What's the exact state you're in? I tried to reproduce this, but just > > >doing a live migration and then savevm on the destination works fine for > > >me. > > > > > >Hm... Or do you mean on the source? In that case, I think the operation > > >must fail, but of course more gracefully than now. > > > > Yes, I mean on the source. It may not be migration for "mirgration", > > but for dumping state to file. In that case it seems not wrong to > > make a snapshot on source. > > Yes, resuming on the source is definitely valid. I'm only questioning if > 'savevm' (and by extension, any other command that modifies the VM or > its images) should automagically regain control of the VM, or whether > that should be more explicit. How many things other than 'cont' and 'savevm' are there? We should definitely fix it so a savevm there doesn't assert, but I'm also unsure if it's worth a separate explicit command. Dave > Kevin -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK