On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:37:18AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 09.03.2021 um 05:52 hat Akihiko Odaki geschrieben: > > 2021年3月9日(火) 0:37 Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > 2021年3月9日(火) 0:17 Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>: > > > > > > > > The live migration compatibility issue is still present. Migrating to > > > > another host might not work if the block limits are different. > > > > > > > > Here is an idea for solving it: > > > > > > > > Modify include/hw/block/block.h:DEFINE_BLOCK_PROPERTIES_BASE() to > > > > support a new value called "host". The default behavior remains > > > > unchanged for live migration compatibility but now you can use "host" if > > > > you know it's okay but don't care about migration compatibility. > > > > > > > > The downside to this approach is that users must explicitly say > > > > something like --drive ...,opt_io_size=host. But it's still better than > > > > the situation we have today where user must manually enter values for > > > > their disk. > > > > > > > > Does this sound okay to everyone? > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > I wonder how that change affects other block drivers implementing > > > bdrv_probe_blocksizes. As far as I know, the values they report are > > > already used by default, which is contrary to the default not being > > > "host". > > > > > > Regards, > > > Akihiko Odaki > > > > Let me suggest a variant of Stefan's approach: > > > > Modify include/hw/block/block.h:DEFINE_BLOCK_PROPERTIES_BASE() to > > support a new value called "host". The default values for block size > > properties may be "host" or not, but they should be consistent. If > > they are "host" by default > > I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but maybe we could make it so that the > default is "host" only as long as you didn't specify -nodefaults? Then > libvirt would automatically keep the old behaviour (because it always > sets -nodefaults) and manual invocations would usually get the new one. > > Of course, when I start with "I'm not sure if it's a good idea", it's > usually not, but I wanted to share the thought anyway...
Can you elaborate on what the actual live migration problem is, and its impact ? This patch is touching the block backends, so I'm wondering how backend data ends up having an impact on the migration stream which is all frontend device data ? I'm especially concerned by the mention that some block backends already have this problem, and wondering if it already impacts libvirt ? Using -nodefaults is good practice, but I'm still uncomfortable saying that its use is a requirement if you want migration to work, as that feels like a change in semantics for non-libvirt users (who can be mgmt apps, nor merely human interactive users). Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|