On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 05:58:46PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Daniel P. Berrangé (berra...@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 07:31:45PM +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote: > > > That's great, I love when things are simple. > > > > > > If indeed we want to remove the copy in libvirt (which will also mean > > > explicitly fsyncing elsewhere, as the iohelper would not be there anymore > > > to do that for us on image creation), > > > with QEMU having a "file" protocol support for migration, > > > > > > do we plan to have libvirt and QEMU both open the file for writing > > > concurrently, with QEMU opening O_DIRECT? > > > > For non-libvirt users, I expect QEMU would open the > > file directly . For libvirt usage, it is likely > > preferrable to pass the pre-opened FD, because that > > simplifies file permission handling. > > > > > The alternative being having libvirt open the file with > > > O_DIRECT, write some libvirt stuff in a new, O_DIRECT- > > > friendly format, and then pass the fd to qemu to migrate to, > > > and QEMU sending its new O_DIRECT friendly stream there. > > > > Yep. > > > > > In any case, the expectation here is to have a new > > > "file://pathname" or "file:://fdname" as an added feature in QEMU, > > > where QEMU would write a new O_DIRECT friendly stream > > > directly into the file, taking care of both optional > > > parallelization and compression. > > > > I could see several distinct building blocks > > > > * First a "file:/some/path" migration protocol > > that can just do "normal" I/O, but still writing > > in the traditional migration data stream > > > > * Modify existing 'fd:' protocol so that it fstat()s > > and passes over to the 'file' protocol handler if > > it sees the FD is not a socket/pipe > > We used to have that at one point. > > > * Add a migration capability "direct-mapped" to > > indicate we want the RAM data written/read directly > > to/from fixed positions in the file, as opposed to > > a stream. Obviously only valid with a sub-set > > of migration protocols (file, and fd: if a seekable > > FD). > > This worries me about how you're going to cleanly glue this into the > migration code; it sounds like what you want it to do is very different > to what it currently does.
I've only investigated it lightly, but I see the key bit of code is this method which emits the header + ram page content: static int save_normal_page(RAMState *rs, RAMBlock *block, ram_addr_t offset, uint8_t *buf, bool async) { ram_transferred_add(save_page_header(rs, rs->f, block, offset | RAM_SAVE_FLAG_PAGE)); if (async) { qemu_put_buffer_async(rs->f, buf, TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, migrate_release_ram() && migration_in_postcopy()); } else { qemu_put_buffer(rs->f, buf, TARGET_PAGE_SIZE); } ram_transferred_add(TARGET_PAGE_SIZE); ram_counters.normal++; return 1; } my (perhaps wishful) thinking was that we just have an alternative impl of this which doesn't save the page header, and puts the page content at a fixed offset. I'm fuzzy on how we figure out the right offset - I was hoping that "RAMState" or "RAMBlock" somehow gives us enough info to figure out a deterministic mapping to a file location. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|