At 10/09/2011 06:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones Write: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 10:49:57AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> As explained in the other replies: It is way more future-proof to use an >> interface for this which was designed for it (remote gdb) instead of >> artificially relaxing reasonable constraints of the migration mechanism >> plus having to follow that format with the post-processing tool. > > Any interface that isn't "get this information off my production > server *now*" so that I can get the server restarted, and send it to > an expert to analyse -- is a poor interface, whether it was designed > like that or not. Perhaps we don't have the right interface at all, > but remote gdb is not it.
What about the following idea? Introduce a new monitor command named dump, and this command accepts a filename. We can use almost all migration's code. We use this command to dump guest's memory, so there is no need to check whether the guest has a unmigratable device. Thanks Wen Congyang > > Rich. >
