On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 07:46:12AM -0400, Steven Sistare wrote: > I understand, thanks. If I can help with any of your todo list, > just ask - steve
Thanks for offering the help, Steve. Started looking at this today, then I found that I miss something high-level. Let me ask here, and let me apologize already for starting to throw multiple questions.. IIUC the whole idea of this patchset is to allow efficient QEMU upgrade, in this case not host kernel but QEMU-only, and/or upper. Is there any justification on why the complexity is needed here? It looks to me this one is more involved than cpr-reboot, so I'm thinking how much we can get from the complexity, and whether it's worthwhile. 1000+ LOC is the min support, and if we even expect more to come, that's really important, IMHO. For example, what's the major motivation of this whole work? Is that more on performance, or is it more for supporting the special devices like VFIO which we used to not support, or something else? I can't find them in whatever cover letter I can find, including this one. Firstly, regarding performance, IMHO it'll be always nice to share even some very fundamental downtime measurement comparisons using the new exec mode v.s. the old migration ways to upgrade QEMU binary. Do you perhaps have some number on hand when you started working on this feature years ago? Or maybe some old links on the list would help too, as I didn't follow this work since the start. On VFIO, IIUC you started out this project without VFIO migration being there. Now we have VFIO migration so not sure how much it would work for the upgrade use case. Even with current VFIO migration, we may not want to migrate device states for a local upgrade I suppose, as that can be a lot depending on the type of device assigned. However it'll be nice to discuss this too if this is the major purpose of the series. I think one other challenge on QEMU upgrade with VFIO devices is that the dest QEMU won't be able to open the VFIO device when the src QEMU is still using it as the owner. IIUC this is a similar condition where QEMU wants to have proper ownership transfer of a shared block device, and AFAIR right now we resolved that issue using some form of file lock on the image file. In this case it won't easily apply to a VFIO dev fd, but maybe we still have other approaches, not sure whether you investigated any. E.g. could the VFIO handle be passed over using unix scm rights? I think this might remove one dependency of using exec which can cause quite some difference v.s. a generic migration (from which regard, cpr-reboot is still a pretty generic migration). You also mentioned vhost/tap, is that also a major goal of this series in the follow up patchsets? Is this a problem only because this solution will do exec? Can it work if either the exec()ed qemu or dst qemu create the vhost/tap fds when boot? Meanwhile, could you elaborate a bit on the implication on chardevs? From what I read in the doc update it looks like a major part of work in the future, but I don't yet understand the issue.. Is it also relevant to the exec() approach? In all cases, some of such discussion would be really appreciated. And if you used to consider other approaches to solve this problem it'll be great to mention how you chose this way. Considering this work contains too many things, it'll be nice if such discussion can start with the fundamentals, e.g. on why exec() is a must. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
