Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On 2015年12月30日 00:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Interesting. So you sare saying merely ifdown/ifup is 100ms? > This does not sound reasonable. > Is there a chance you are e.g. getting IP from dhcp? > > If so that is wrong - clearly should reconfigure the old IP > back without playing with dhcp.

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:42:14AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: >> >> >> On 12/25/2015 8:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >As long as you keep up this vague talk about performance during >> >migration, without even

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:42:14AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > > > On 12/25/2015 8:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >As long as you keep up this vague talk about performance during > >migration, without even bothering with any measurements, this patchset > >will keep going nowhere. > > > > I

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 09:04:51AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:42:14AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: >> >> >>

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 09:04:51AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:42:14AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 12/25/2015 8:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> >As long as you keep

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 03:20:10AM +, Dong, Eddie wrote: > > > > > > Even if the device driver doesn't support migration, you still want to > > > migrate VM? That maybe risk and we should add the "bad path" for the > > > driver at least. > > > > At a minimum we should have support for

RE: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

Hello! > A dedicated IRQ per device for something that is a system wide event > sounds like a waste. I don't understand why a spec change is strictly > required, we only need to support this with the specific virtual bridge > used by QEMU, so I think that a vendor specific capability will do. >

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 01:45:15PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 02:31:14PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >> The PCI hot-plug specification calls out that the OS can optionally > >>

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 11:52:43AM +0300, Pavel Fedin wrote: > Hello! > > > A dedicated IRQ per device for something that is a system wide event > > sounds like a waste. I don't understand why a spec change is strictly > > required, we only need to support this with the specific virtual bridge

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On 12/25/2015 8:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: As long as you keep up this vague talk about performance during migration, without even bothering with any measurements, this patchset will keep going nowhere. I measured network service downtime for "keep device alive"(RFC patch V1

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 02:31:14PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > The PCI hot-plug specification calls out that the OS can optionally > implement a "pause" mechanism which is meant to be used for high > availability type environments. What I am proposing is basically > extending the standard

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 02:31:14PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> The PCI hot-plug specification calls out that the OS can optionally >> implement a "pause" mechanism which is meant to be used for high >> availability

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Dong, Eddie wrote: >> > >> > Even if the device driver doesn't support migration, you still want to >> > migrate VM? That maybe risk and we should add the "bad path" for the >> > driver at least. >> >> At a minimum we should have support for

RE: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

> > > > Even if the device driver doesn't support migration, you still want to > > migrate VM? That maybe risk and we should add the "bad path" for the > > driver at least. > > At a minimum we should have support for hot-plug if we are expecting to > support migration. You would simply have to

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 03:03:47PM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote: > Merry Christmas. > Sorry for later response due to personal affair. > > On 2015年12月14日 03:30, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >> > These sounds we need to add a faked bridge for migration and adding a > >> > driver in the guest for it. It

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Lan Tianyu wrote: > Merry Christmas. > Sorry for later response due to personal affair. > > On 2015年12月14日 03:30, Alexander Duyck wrote: >>> > These sounds we need to add a faked bridge for migration and adding a >>> > driver in the guest

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

Merry Christmas. Sorry for later response due to personal affair. On 2015年12月14日 03:30, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> > These sounds we need to add a faked bridge for migration and adding a >> > driver in the guest for it. It also needs to extend PCI bus/hotplug >> > driver to do pause/resume other

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:47:44PM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > > > On 12/11/2015 1:16 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 12/10/2015 7:41 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > Ideally, it is able to

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 03:32:04PM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > > > On 12/11/2015 12:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:38:32PM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 12/10/2015 7:41 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > Ideally, it is able to leave guest driver

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On 12/11/2015 1:16 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Lan, Tianyu wrote: On 12/10/2015 7:41 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: Ideally, it is able to leave guest driver unmodified but it requires the hypervisor or qemu to aware the device

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > > > On 12/11/2015 1:16 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Lan, Tianyu wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/10/2015 7:41 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > >

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:38:32PM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: >> >> >> On 12/10/2015 7:41 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >> >>Ideally, it is able to leave guest driver unmodified but it requires the >> >>>hypervisor

Re: live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:04:54AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > > On 12/10/2015 4:07 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:26:25AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > >>On 12/8/2015 12:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>I thought about what this is doing at the high level, and I

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

* Yang Zhang (yang.zhang...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 2015/12/10 18:18, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > >* Lan, Tianyu (tianyu@intel.com) wrote: > >>On 12/8/2015 12:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>I thought about what this is doing at the high level, and I do have some > >>>value in what

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

* Lan, Tianyu (tianyu@intel.com) wrote: > On 12/8/2015 12:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >I thought about what this is doing at the high level, and I do have some > >value in what you are trying to do, but I also think we need to clarify > >the motivation a bit more. What you are saying

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On 2015/12/10 18:18, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: * Lan, Tianyu (tianyu@intel.com) wrote: On 12/8/2015 12:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: I thought about what this is doing at the high level, and I do have some value in what you are trying to do, but I also think we need to clarify the

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > > > On 12/10/2015 7:41 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>> >>> Ideally, it is able to leave guest driver unmodified but it requires the >>> >hypervisor or qemu to aware the device which means we may need a driver >>> >

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On 2015/12/10 19:41, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: * Yang Zhang (yang.zhang...@gmail.com) wrote: On 2015/12/10 18:18, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: * Lan, Tianyu (tianyu@intel.com) wrote: On 12/8/2015 12:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: I thought about what this is doing at the high

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On 12/11/2015 12:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:38:32PM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: On 12/10/2015 7:41 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: Ideally, it is able to leave guest driver unmodified but it requires the hypervisor or qemu to aware the device which means

Re: live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On 12/10/2015 4:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Let's assume you do save state and do have a way to detect whether state matches a given hardware. For example, driver could store firmware and hardware versions in the state, and then on destination, retrieve them and compare. It will be pretty

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On 12/10/2015 7:41 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: Ideally, it is able to leave guest driver unmodified but it requires the >hypervisor or qemu to aware the device which means we may need a driver in >hypervisor or qemu to handle the device on behalf of guest driver. Can you answer the

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:38:32PM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > > > On 12/10/2015 7:41 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > >>Ideally, it is able to leave guest driver unmodified but it requires the > >>>hypervisor or qemu to aware the device which means we may need a driver in > >>>hypervisor or

Re: [Qemu-devel] live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

* Lan, Tianyu (tianyu@intel.com) wrote: > > > On 12/10/2015 7:41 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > >>Ideally, it is able to leave guest driver unmodified but it requires the > >>>hypervisor or qemu to aware the device which means we may need a driver in > >>>hypervisor or qemu to handle

Re: live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On 12/8/2015 12:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: I thought about what this is doing at the high level, and I do have some value in what you are trying to do, but I also think we need to clarify the motivation a bit more. What you are saying is not really what the patches are doing. And with

Re: live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > For other kind of devices, it's hard to work. > We are also adding migration support for QAT(QuickAssist Technology) device. > > QAT device user case introduction. > Server, networking, big data, and storage applications

Re: live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:26:25AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > On 12/8/2015 12:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >I thought about what this is doing at the high level, and I do have some > >value in what you are trying to do, but I also think we need to clarify > >the motivation a bit more. What

Re: live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On 12/10/2015 1:14 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Lan, Tianyu wrote: For other kind of devices, it's hard to work. We are also adding migration support for QAT(QuickAssist Technology) device. QAT device user case introduction. Server,

Re: live migration vs device assignment (motivation)

On 12/10/2015 4:07 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:26:25AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: On 12/8/2015 12:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: I thought about what this is doing at the high level, and I do have some value in what you are trying to do, but I also think we need