On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 07:24:58PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> On 5.12.2024 20:46, Zhang Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 5:30 AM Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 08:20:00PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/migration/colo.c b/migration/colo.c
> > > > index 9590f281d0f1..a75c2c41b464 100644
> > > > --- a/migration/colo.c
> > > > +++ b/migration/colo.c
> > > > @@ -452,6 +452,9 @@ static int
> > > > colo_do_checkpoint_transaction(MigrationState *s,
> > > > bql_unlock();
> > > > goto out;
> > > > }
> > > > +
> > > > + qemu_savevm_maybe_send_switchover_start(s->to_dst_file);
> > > > +
> > > > /* Note: device state is saved into buffer */
> > > > ret = qemu_save_device_state(fb);
> > >
> > > Looks all good, except I'm not sure whether we should touch colo. IIUC it
> > > should be safer to remove it.
> > >
> >
> > Agree with Peter's comments.
> > If I understand correctly, the current COLO doesn't support multifd
> > migration.
>
> This patch adds a generic migration bit stream command, which could be used
> for other purposes than multifd device state migration too.
>
> It just so happens we make use of it for VFIO driver multifd device state
> migration currently since we need a way to achieve the same functionality
> as save_live_complete_precopy_{begin,end} handlers did in the previous
> versions of this patch set.
>
> Since adding this bit stream command to COLO does not cost anything
> (it's already behind a compatibility migration property) and it may be
> useful in the future I would advise to keep it there.
>
> On the other hand, if we don't add it to COLO now but it turns out it
> will be needed there to implement some functionality in the future then
> we'll need to add yet another compatibility migration property for that.
There's one thing still slightly off for COLO, where IIUC COLO runs that in
a loop to synchronize device states (colo_do_checkpoint_transaction()) to
the other side, so that's not exactly where the "switchover" (in COLO's
wording, I think it's called "failover") happens for COLO.. Hence the name
qemu_savevm_maybe_send_switchover_start() may be slightly misleading in
COLO's case..
But that's not a huge deal. At least I checked and I agree the code should
work for COLO too, and I think COLO should need something like machine type
to work properly across upgrades, in that case I think COLO is safe. So
I'm OK with keeping this, as long as Chen doesn't object.
--
Peter Xu
