On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Wenchao Xia <xiaw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > δΊ 2013-8-12 19:33, Stefan Hajnoczi ει: > >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Alex Bligh <a...@alex.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>> --On 12 August 2013 11:59:03 +0200 Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The idea that was discussed on qemu-de...@nongnu.org uses fork(2) to >>>> capture the state of guest RAM and then send it back to the parent >>>> process. The guest is only paused for a brief instant during fork(2) >>>> and can continue to run afterwards. >>> >>> >>> >>> How would you capture the state of emulated hardware which might not >>> be in the guest RAM? >> >> >> Exactly the same way vmsave works today. It calls the device's save >> functions which serialize state to file. >> >> The difference between today's vmsave and the fork(2) approach is that >> QEMU does not need to wait for guest RAM to be written to file before >> resuming the guest. >> >> Stefan >> > I have a worry about what glib says: > > "On Unix, the GLib mainloop is incompatible with fork(). Any program > using the mainloop must either exec() or exit() from the child without > returning to the mainloop. "
This is fine, the child just writes out the memory pages and exits. It never returns to the glib mainloop. > There is another way to do it: intercept the write in kvm.ko(or other > kernel code). Since the key is intercept the memory change, we can do > it in userspace in TCG mode, thus we can add the missing part in KVM > mode. Another benefit of this way is: the used memory can be > controlled. For example, with ioctl(), set a buffer of a fixed size > which keeps the intercepted write data by kernel code, which can avoid > frequently switch back to user space qemu code. when it is full always > return back to userspace's qemu code, let qemu code save the data into > disk. I haven't check the exactly behavior of Intel guest mode about > how to handle page fault, so can't estimate the performance caused by > switching of guest mode and root mode, but it should not be worse than > fork(). The fork(2) approach is portable, covers both KVM and TCG, and doesn't require kernel changes. A kvm.ko kernel change also won't be supported on existing KVM hosts. These are big drawbacks and the kernel approach would need to be significantly better than plain old fork(2) to make it worthwhile. Stefan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
