On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 11:10:28PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > On 15.07.26 18:01, Michael Tokarev wrote: > > On 14.07.2026 18:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > > > Hi all! > > > > > > Here is a migration for TAP net backend, including its properties and > > > open fds. > > > > > > With this new feature, management software doesn't need to initialize > > > new TAP and do a switch to it. Nothing should be done around > > > virtio-net in local migration: it just migrates and continues to use > > > same TAP device. So we avoid extra logic in management software, extra > > > allocations in kernel (for new TAP), and corresponding extra delay in > > > migration downtime. > > > > This is quite a big patch set, > > You probably haven't been following Steve's work (about 5 years) on > CPR Live Update :) My patch set is small. > > > - is this really worth the effort to do > > all this just for *local* migration? What's the possible use case for > > this in real, - am I right this is just about upgrading the host qemu? > > Exactly. You say "just for", but actually local migration is a lot more > "massive" operation for us. Remote migrations are done mostly to release the > physical server for service/redeploy (you should first migrate all the > vms to other servers). That's a relatively seldom operation. > > On the contrary, when updating to new QEMU version, you migrate _all_ > vms on _all_ servers. These (minimal) downtimes affects all the > customers, some are sensitive to freezes. > > > And with that in mind, isn't it sufficient to use what we already have > > (namely, create new tap, start new qemu instance, and migrate the usual > > way), and tolerate some very minor downtime while the networking code > > learns the new network topology (isn't it happening almost instantly > > anyway, and if not, the management can help by sending gratitious ARP)? > > > > I wonder what's the use for this at yandex? > > > > This series together with similar about vhost-user-blk local migration > gives several times win in freeze-time. It's significant for us. > > -- > Best regards, > Vladimir
I believe it is. But let's focus on what exactly are we saving here. It is not that clear. Is it the overhead of tap losing state such as bridge forgetting the tap mac. Or what? -- MST
