On 18.04.23 19:59, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:09:30AM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 9:33 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 at 15:10, Eugenio Perez Martin <epere...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 5:38 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:14:24PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:06 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:05:13PM +0200, Hanna Czenczek wrote:
So-called "internal" virtio-fs migration refers to transporting the
back-end's (virtiofsd's) state through qemu's migration stream. To do
this, we need to be able to transfer virtiofsd's internal state to and
from virtiofsd.
Because virtiofsd's internal state will not be too large, we believe it
is best to transfer it as a single binary blob after the streaming
phase. Because this method should be useful to other vhost-user
implementations, too, it is introduced as a general-purpose addition to
the protocol, not limited to vhost-user-fs.
These are the additions to the protocol:
- New vhost-user protocol feature VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_MIGRATORY_STATE:
This feature signals support for transferring state, and is added so
that migration can fail early when the back-end has no support.
- SET_DEVICE_STATE_FD function: Front-end and back-end negotiate a pipe
over which to transfer the state. The front-end sends an FD to the
back-end into/from which it can write/read its state, and the back-end
can decide to either use it, or reply with a different FD for the
front-end to override the front-end's choice.
The front-end creates a simple pipe to transfer the state, but maybe
the back-end already has an FD into/from which it has to write/read
its state, in which case it will want to override the simple pipe.
Conversely, maybe in the future we find a way to have the front-end
get an immediate FD for the migration stream (in some cases), in which
case we will want to send this to the back-end instead of creating a
pipe.
Hence the negotiation: If one side has a better idea than a plain
pipe, we will want to use that.
- CHECK_DEVICE_STATE: After the state has been transferred through the
pipe (the end indicated by EOF), the front-end invokes this function
to verify success. There is no in-band way (through the pipe) to
indicate failure, so we need to check explicitly.
Once the transfer pipe has been established via SET_DEVICE_STATE_FD
(which includes establishing the direction of transfer and migration
phase), the sending side writes its data into the pipe, and the reading
side reads it until it sees an EOF. Then, the front-end will check for
success via CHECK_DEVICE_STATE, which on the destination side includes
checking for integrity (i.e. errors during deserialization).
Suggested-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Hanna Czenczek <hre...@redhat.com>
---
include/hw/virtio/vhost-backend.h | 24 +++++
include/hw/virtio/vhost.h | 79 ++++++++++++++++
hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 147 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/virtio/vhost.c | 37 ++++++++
4 files changed, 287 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-backend.h
b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-backend.h
index ec3fbae58d..5935b32fe3 100644
--- a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-backend.h
+++ b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-backend.h
@@ -26,6 +26,18 @@ typedef enum VhostSetConfigType {
VHOST_SET_CONFIG_TYPE_MIGRATION = 1,
} VhostSetConfigType;
+typedef enum VhostDeviceStateDirection {
+ /* Transfer state from back-end (device) to front-end */
+ VHOST_TRANSFER_STATE_DIRECTION_SAVE = 0,
+ /* Transfer state from front-end to back-end (device) */
+ VHOST_TRANSFER_STATE_DIRECTION_LOAD = 1,
+} VhostDeviceStateDirection;
+
+typedef enum VhostDeviceStatePhase {
+ /* The device (and all its vrings) is stopped */
+ VHOST_TRANSFER_STATE_PHASE_STOPPED = 0,
+} VhostDeviceStatePhase;
vDPA has:
/* Suspend a device so it does not process virtqueue requests anymore
*
* After the return of ioctl the device must preserve all the necessary state
* (the virtqueue vring base plus the possible device specific states) that
is
* required for restoring in the future. The device must not change its
* configuration after that point.
*/
#define VHOST_VDPA_SUSPEND _IO(VHOST_VIRTIO, 0x7D)
/* Resume a device so it can resume processing virtqueue requests
*
* After the return of this ioctl the device will have restored all the
* necessary states and it is fully operational to continue processing the
* virtqueue descriptors.
*/
#define VHOST_VDPA_RESUME _IO(VHOST_VIRTIO, 0x7E)
I wonder if it makes sense to import these into vhost-user so that the
difference between kernel vhost and vhost-user is minimized. It's okay
if one of them is ahead of the other, but it would be nice to avoid
overlapping/duplicated functionality.
That's what I had in mind in the first versions. I proposed VHOST_STOP
instead of VHOST_VDPA_STOP for this very reason. Later it did change
to SUSPEND.
I noticed QEMU only calls ioctl(VHOST_VDPA_SUSPEND) and not
ioctl(VHOST_VDPA_RESUME).
The doc comments in <linux/vdpa.h> don't explain how the device can
leave the suspended state. Can you clarify this?
Do you mean in what situations or regarding the semantics of _RESUME?
To me resume is an operation mainly to resume the device in the event
of a VM suspension, not a migration. It can be used as a fallback code
in some cases of migration failure though, but it is not currently
used in qemu.
Is a "VM suspension" the QEMU HMP 'stop' command?
I guess the reason why QEMU doesn't call RESUME anywhere is that it
resets the device in vhost_dev_stop()?
The actual reason for not using RESUME is that the ioctl was added
after the SUSPEND design in qemu. Same as this proposal, it is was not
needed at the time.
In the case of vhost-vdpa net, the only usage of suspend is to fetch
the vq indexes, and in case of error vhost already fetches them from
guest's used ring way before vDPA, so it has little usage.
Does it make sense to combine SUSPEND and RESUME with Hanna's
SET_DEVICE_STATE_FD? For example, non-iterative migration works like
this:
- Saving the device's state is done by SUSPEND followed by
SET_DEVICE_STATE_FD. If the guest needs to continue executing (e.g.
savevm command or migration failed), then RESUME is called to
continue.
I think the previous steps make sense at vhost_dev_stop, not virtio
savevm handlers. To start spreading this logic to more places of qemu
can bring confusion.
I don't think there is a way around extending the QEMU vhost's code
model. The current model in QEMU's vhost code is that the backend is
reset when the VM stops. This model worked fine for stateless devices
but it doesn't work for stateful devices.
Imagine a vdpa-gpu device: you cannot reset the device in
vhost_dev_stop() and expect the GPU to continue working when
vhost_dev_start() is called again because all its state has been lost.
The guest driver will send requests that references a virtio-gpu
resources that no longer exist.
One solution is to save the device's state in vhost_dev_stop(). I think
this is what you're suggesting. It requires keeping a copy of the state
and then loading the state again in vhost_dev_start(). I don't think
this approach should be used because it requires all stateful devices to
support live migration (otherwise they break across HMP 'stop'/'cont').
Also, the device state for some devices may be large and it would also
become more complicated when iterative migration is added.
Instead, I think the QEMU vhost code needs to be structured so that
struct vhost_dev has a suspended state:
,---------.
v |
started ------> stopped
\ ^
\ |
-> suspended
The device doesn't lose state when it enters the suspended state. It can
be resumed again.
This is why I think SUSPEND/RESUME need to be part of the solution.
(It's also an argument for not including the phase argument in
SET_DEVICE_STATE_FD because the SUSPEND message is sent during
vhost_dev_stop() separately from saving the device's state.)
So let me ask if I understand this protocol correctly: Basically,
SUSPEND would ask the device to fully serialize its internal state,
retain it in some buffer, and RESUME would then deserialize the state
from the buffer, right?
While this state needn’t necessarily be immediately migratable, I
suppose (e.g. one could retain file descriptors there, and it doesn’t
need to be a serialized byte buffer, but could still be structured), it
would basically be a live migration implementation already. As far as I
understand, that’s why you suggest not running a SUSPEND+RESUME cycle on
anything but live migration, right?
I wonder how that model would then work with iterative migration,
though. Basically, for non-iterative migration, the back-end would
expect SUSPEND first to flush its state out to a buffer, and then the
state transfer would just copy from that buffer. For iterative
migration, though, there is no SUSPEND first, so the back-end must
implicitly begin to serialize its state and send it over. I find that a
bit strange.
Also, how would this work with currently migratable stateless
back-ends? Do they already implement SUSPEND+RESUME as no-ops? If not,
I think we should detect stateless back-ends and skip the operations in
qemu lest we have to update those back-ends for no real reason.
Hanna
