From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 07:51:37 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20230119074602-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20230115170903.3416105-1-antonkuchin@yandex-team.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20230115170903.3416105-1-antonkuchin@yandex-team.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] vhost-user-fs: add capability to allow migration List-Id: Development discussions about virtio-fs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anton Kuchin Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtio-fs@redhat.com, Markus Armbruster , Eric Blake , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Stefan Hajnoczi , Juan Quintela , yc-core@yandex-team.ru On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 07:09:03PM +0200, Anton Kuchin wrote: > Now any vhost-user-fs device makes VM unmigratable, that also prevents > qemu update without stopping the VM. In most cases that makes sense > because qemu has no way to transfer FUSE session state. > > But we can give an option to orchestrator to override this if it can > guarantee that state will be preserved (e.g. it uses migration to > update qemu and dst will run on the same host as src and use the same > socket endpoints). > > This patch keeps default behavior that prevents migration with such devices > but adds migration capability 'vhost-user-fs' to explicitly allow migration. > > Signed-off-by: Anton Kuchin > --- > hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- > qapi/migration.json | 7 ++++++- > 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c > index f5049735ac..13d920423e 100644 > --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c > +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ > #include "hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.h" > #include "monitor/monitor.h" > #include "sysemu/sysemu.h" > +#include "migration/migration.h" > > static const int user_feature_bits[] = { > VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1, > @@ -298,9 +299,31 @@ static struct vhost_dev *vuf_get_vhost(VirtIODevice *vdev) > return &fs->vhost_dev; > } > > +static int vhost_user_fs_pre_save(void *opaque) > +{ > + MigrationState *s = migrate_get_current(); > + > + if (!s->enabled_capabilities[MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_VHOST_USER_FS]) { > + error_report("Migration of vhost-user-fs devices requires internal FUSE " > + "state of backend to be preserved. If orchestrator can " > + "guarantee this (e.g. dst connects to the same backend " > + "instance or backend state is migrated) set 'vhost-user-fs' " > + "migration capability to true to enable migration."); Isn't it possible that some backends are same and some are not? Shouldn't this be a device property then? > + return -1; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > static const VMStateDescription vuf_vmstate = { > .name = "vhost-user-fs", > - .unmigratable = 1, > + .minimum_version_id = 0, > + .version_id = 0, > + .fields = (VMStateField[]) { > + VMSTATE_VIRTIO_DEVICE, > + VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST() > + }, > + .pre_save = vhost_user_fs_pre_save, > }; > > static Property vuf_properties[] = { > diff --git a/qapi/migration.json b/qapi/migration.json > index 88ecf86ac8..9a229ea884 100644 > --- a/qapi/migration.json > +++ b/qapi/migration.json > @@ -477,6 +477,11 @@ > # will be handled faster. This is a performance feature and > # should not affect the correctness of postcopy migration. > # (since 7.1) > +# @vhost-user-fs: If enabled, the migration process will allow migration of > +# vhost-user-fs devices, this should be enabled only when > +# backend can preserve local FUSE state e.g. for qemu update > +# when dst reconects to the same endpoints after migration. > +# (since 8.0) > # > # Features: > # @unstable: Members @x-colo and @x-ignore-shared are experimental. > @@ -492,7 +497,7 @@ > 'dirty-bitmaps', 'postcopy-blocktime', 'late-block-activate', > { 'name': 'x-ignore-shared', 'features': [ 'unstable' ] }, > 'validate-uuid', 'background-snapshot', > - 'zero-copy-send', 'postcopy-preempt'] } > + 'zero-copy-send', 'postcopy-preempt', 'vhost-user-fs'] } I kind of dislike that it's such a specific flag. Is only vhost-user-fs ever going to be affected? Any way to put it in a way that is more generic? > ## > # @MigrationCapabilityStatus: > -- > 2.34.1