Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/ioreq server: Add HVMOP to map guest ram with p2m_ioreq_server to an ioreq server

["Yu, Zhang" <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/8/2016 7:01 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 08/04/16 11:10, Yu, Zhang wrote:
> [snip]
> > BTW, I noticed your reply has not be CCed to mailing list, and I also
> > wonder if we should raise this last question in community?
> Oops -- that was a mistake on my part.  :-)  I appreciate the
> discretion; just so you know in the future, if I'm purposely changing
> the CC list (removing xen-devel and/or adding extra people), I'll almost
> always say so at the top of the mail.
>
> > > And then of course there's the p2m_ioreq_server -> p2m_ram_logdirty
> > > transition -- I assume that live migration is incompatible with this
> > > functionality?  Is there anything that prevents a live migration from
> > > being started when there are outstanding p2m_ioreq_server entries?
> > Another good question, and the answer is unfortunately yes. :-)
> >
> > If live migration happens during the normal emulation process, entries
> > marked with p2m_ioreq_server will be changed to p2m_log_dirty in
> > resolve_misconfig(), and later write operations will change them to
> > p2m_ram_rw, thereafter these pages can not be forwarded to device model.
> >  From this point of view, this functionality is incompatible with live
> > migration.
> >
> > But for XenGT, I think this is acceptable, because, if live migration
> > is to be supported in the future, intervention from backend device
> > model will be necessary. At that time, we can guarantee from the device
> > model side that there's no outdated p2m_ioreq_server entries, hence no
> > need to reset the p2m type back to p2m_ram_rw(and do not include
> > p2m_ioreq_server in the P2M_CHANGEABLE_TYPES). By "outdated", I mean
> > when an ioreq server is detached from p2m_ioreq_server, or before an
> > ioreq server is attached to this type, entries marked with
> > p2m_ioreq_server should be regarded as outdated.
> >
> > Is this acceptible to you? Any suggestions?
> So the question is, as of this series, what happens if someone tries to
> initiate a live migration while there are outstanding p2m_ioreq_server
> entries?
>
> If the answer is "the ioreq server suddenly loses all control of the
> memory", that's something that needs to be changed.
Sorry, for this patch series, I'm afraid the above description is the
answer.

Besides, I find it's hard to change current code to both support the
deferred resetting of p2m_ioreq_server and the live migration at the
same time. One reason is that a page with p2m_ioreq_server behaves
differently in different situations.

My assumption of XenGT is that, for live migration to work, the device
model should guarantee there's no outstanding p2m_ioreq_server pages
in hypervisor(no need to use the deferred recalculation), and it is our
device model who should be responsible for the copying of the write
protected guest pages later.

And another solution I can think of: when unmapping the ioreq server,
we walk the p2m table and reset entries with p2m_ioreq_server back
directly, instead of deferring the reset. And of course, this means
performance impact. But since the mapping and unmapping of an ioreq
server is not a frequent one, the performance penalty may be acceptable.
How do you think about this approach?

> If the answer is, "everything just works", that's perfect.
>
> If the answer is, "Before logdirty mode is set, the ioreq server has the
> opportunity to detach, removing the p2m_ioreq_server entries, and
> operating without that functionality", that's good too.
>
> If the answer is, "the live migration request fails and the guest
> continues to run", that's also acceptable.  If you want this series to
> be checked in today (the last day for 4.7), this is probably your best bet.
>
>   -George
B.R.
Yu

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel