From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44431) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T3lTo-0003Co-5E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:14:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T3lTf-0007GL-TY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:14:36 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12551) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T3lTf-0007GB-K5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:14:27 -0400 Message-ID: <50335F78.1030005@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:14:16 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1345537427-21601-1-git-send-email-mc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50334B51.6050900@redhat.com> <503357B2.5040901@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2 v1] blkdrv: Add queue limits parameters for sg block drive List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com, zwanp@cn.ibm.com, linuxram@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Cong Meng Il 21/08/2012 11:52, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto: >>> >> Using /sys/dev/block or /sys/dev/char seems easier, and lets you >>> >> retrieve the parameters for block devices too. >>> >> >> > what do you mean with "block devices"? Using "/dev/sda" instead of >> > "/dev/sg0"? Yes. >>> >> However, I'm worried of the consequences this has for migration. You >>> >> could have the same physical disk accessed with two different HBAs, with >>> >> different limits. So I don't know if this can really be solved at all. >>> >> >> > I know little about qemu migration now. The pending scsi commands will be >> > saved and >> > transfered to remote machine when starting migration? > > Passthrough is already a migration blocker if both hosts do not have > access to the same LUNs. Yes, but requiring the exact same hardware may be too much. I'm trying to understand the problem better before committing to a threefold spec/qemu/kernel change. Cong, what is the limit that the host HBA enforces (and what is the HBA)? What commands see a problem? Is it fixed by using scsi-block instead of scsi-generic (if you can use scsi-block at all, i.e. it's not a tape or similar device)? With scsi-generic, QEMU uses a bounce buffer for non-I/O commands to a SCSI passthrough device, so the only problem in that case should be the maximum segment size. This could change in the future, but max_segments and max_sectors should not yet be a problem. With scsi-block, QEMU will use read/write on the block device and the host kernel will then obey the host HBA's block limits. QEMU will still use a bounce buffer for non-I/O commands to a scsi-block device, but the payload is usually small for non-I/O commands. Paolo > When both hosts do have access to the same LUNs it's possible to > extract the block queue limits (using sysfs) and compare them. > > Today you can start QEMU with different image files on both hosts. > Migration will appear to work but the disk image on the destination > host could be junk. This is a similar case, I don't see a problem > except that there should be a safety check (maybe at the libvirt > level) to make this safe.