Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] postcopy livemigration proposal

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 08/09/2011 05:33 AM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 03:38:54PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >  On 08/08/2011 06:24 AM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> >>  This mail is on "Yabusame: Postcopy Live Migration for Qemu/KVM"
> >>  on which we'll give a talk at KVM-forum.
> >>  The purpose of this mail is to letting developers know it in advance
> >>  so that we can get better feedback on its design/implementation approach
> >>  early before our starting to implement it.
> >
> >  Interesting; what is the impact of increased latency on memory reads?
>
> Many people has already discussed it much in another thread. :-)
> That's much more than I expected.

Can you point me to the discussion?

>
> >>  There are several design points.
> >>     - who takes care of pulling page contents.
> >>       an independent daemon vs a thread in qemu
> >>       The daemon approach is preferable because an independent daemon would
> >>       easy for debug postcopy memory mechanism without qemu.
> >>       If required, it wouldn't be difficult to convert a daemon into
> >>       a thread in qemu
> >
> >  Isn't this equivalent to touching each page in sequence?
>
> No. I don't get your point of this question.

If you have a qemu thread that does

    for (each guest page)
        sum += *(char *)page;

doesn't that effectively pull all pages from the source node?

(but maybe I'm assuming that the kernel takes care of things and this 
isn't the case?)

> >>
> >>     - hooking guest RAM access
> >>       Introduce a character device to handle page fault.
> >>       When page fault occurs, it queues page request up to user space daemon
> >>       at the destination. And the daemon pulls page contents from the source
> >>       and serves it into the character device. Then the page fault is resovlved.
> >
> >  This doesn't play well with host swapping, transparent hugepages, or
> >  ksm, does it?
>
> No. At least it wouldn't be so difficult to fix it, I haven't looked ksm,
> thp so closely though.
> Although the vma is backed by the device, the populated page is
> anonymous. (by MMAP_PRIVATE or the deriver returning anonymous page)
> So swapping, thp, ksm should work.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think that thp and ksm need the vma to be 
anonymous, not just the page.

> >
> >  It would need to be a special kind of swap device since we only want to
> >  swap in, and never out, to that device.  We'd also need a special way of
> >  telling the kernel that memory comes from that device.  In that it's
> >  similar your second option.
> >
> >  Maybe we should use a backing file (using nbd) and have a madvise() call
> >  that converts the vma to anonymous memory once the migration is finished.
>
> With whichever options, I'd like to convert the vma into anonymous area
> after the migration completes somehow. i.e. nulling vma->vm_ops.
> (The pages are already anonymous.)
>
> It seems troublesome involving complicated races/lockings. So I'm not sure
> it's worthwhile.

Andrea, what's your take on this?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function