Re: -only-migrate and the two different uses of migration blockers

["Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>]

* David Gibson (david@gibson.dropbear.id.au) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 07:30:16AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com> writes:
> > 
> > > * Markus Armbruster (armbru@redhat.com) wrote:
> > >> We appear to use migration blockers in two ways:
> > >> 
> > >> (1) Prevent migration for an indefinite time, typically due to use of
> > >> some feature that isn't compatible with migration.
> > >> 
> > >> (2) Delay migration for a short time.
> > >> 
> > >> Option -only-migrate is designed for (1).  It interferes with (2).
> > >> 
> > >> Example for (1): device "x-pci-proxy-dev" doesn't support migration.  It
> > >> adds a migration blocker on realize, and deletes it on unrealize.  With
> > >> -only-migrate, device realize fails.  Works as designed.
> > >> 
> > >> Example for (2): spapr_mce_req_event() makes an effort to prevent
> > >> migration degrate the reporting of FWNMIs.  It adds a migration blocker
> > >> when it receives one, and deletes it when it's done handling it.  This
> > >> is a best effort; if migration is already in progress by the time FWNMI
> > >> is received, we simply carry on, and that's okay.  However, option
> > >> -only-migrate sabotages the best effort entirely.
> > >
> > > That's interesting; it's the first time I've heard of anyone using it as
> > > 'best effort'.  I've always regarded blockers as blocking.
> > 
> > Me too, until I found this one.
> 
> Right, it may well have been the first usage this way, this fwnmi
> stuff isn't super old.
> 
> > >> While this isn't exactly terrible, it may be a weakness in our thinking
> > >> and our infrastructure.  I'm bringing it up so the people in charge are
> > >> aware :)
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > It almost feels like they need a way to temporarily hold off
> > > 'completion' of migratio - i.e. the phase where we stop the CPU and
> > > write the device data;  mind you you'd also probably want it to stop
> > > cold-migrates/snapshots?
> > 
> > Yes, a proper way to delay 'completion' for a bit would be clearer, and
> > wouldn't let -only-migrate interfere.
> 
> Right.  If that becomes a thing, we should use it here.  Note that
> this one use case probably isn't a very strong argument for it,
> though.  The only problem here is slightly less that optimal error
> reporting in a rare edge case (hardware fault occurs by chance at the
> same time as a migration).

Can you at least put a scary comment in to say why it's so odd.

If you wanted a choice of a different bad way to do this, since you have
savevm_htab_handlers, you might be able to make htab_save_iterate claim
there's always more to do.

> 
> .... and, also, I half-suspect that the whole fwnmi feature exists
> more to tick IBM RAS check boxes than because anyone will actually use
> it.

Ah at least it's always reliable....

Dave

> -- 
> David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
> david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
> 				| _way_ _around_!
> http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson


-- 
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK