On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 09:34:48AM +0300, Avihai Horon wrote:
> Yes I think so.
>
> We just need to indicate modules that it’s the last query during switchover
> so they can handle it properly.
> Do you think it would be reasonable to add a "bool final" param to
> save_query_pending handler?
>
> For RAM it will be used to indicate we are running under the BQL (since
> currently save_query_pending runs only outside BQL) and to pass the proper
> last_stage param into migration_bitmap_sync_precopy().
> For VFIO it will indicate we should not do a query precopy info ioctl (which
> is only valid in VFIO precopy states, not while VM is stopped).
Yes, a final boolean sounds reasonable, implying both (1) last sync before
switchover, VM stopped, (2) BQL held.
For VFIO, I double checked the complete() that does not depend on the
precopy_bytes fetched, then it should be fine indeed,
vfio_save_complete_precopy():
do {
data_size = vfio_save_block(f, vbasedev->migration);
if (data_size < 0) {
return data_size;
}
} while (data_size);
It's just werid to see that it doesn't depend on either precopy_bytes or
initial_bytes, even if logically it should.. this will be confusing to
whoever start reading this code.. but I understand not much we can do with
the current kernel API.
Side note: should we still better update these fields to make sure they'll
be zero after migration? That means vfio_update_estimated_pending_data() in
vfio_save_complete_precopy() too, with/without further sanity checks. That
seems to be missing right now. I'm not sure if it's intentional.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
