OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

virtio-dev message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH V2 2/2] virtio: introduce STOP status bit

å 2021/8/4 äå5:20, Stefan Hajnoczi åé:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:42:34AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
å 2021/8/3 äå8:22, Dr. David Alan Gilbert åé:
* Jason Wang (jasowang@redhat.com) wrote:
å 2021/8/3 äå6:37, Stefan Hajnoczi åé:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:33:20PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
å 2021/7/26 äå11:07, Stefan Hajnoczi åé:
I'd expect how Linux implementations work to be standardised.

Does it mean we need:

1) port virtiofsd to multiple platforms
Correct migration requires a non-POSIX mechanism to reopen files (saving
inode numbers as you've suggested isn't enough). If that's unavailable
then it won't be possible to migrate safely.


2) only support live migration among virtiofds
We can standardize the device state representation for Linux passthrough
file systems and implement it in QEMU's virtiofsd and virtiofsd-rs.

However, it's technically possible for other virtiofsd implementations
to migrate too and they shouldn't be second-class citizens. QEMU's
virtiofsd isn't special and Linux passthrough file systems aren't

So the migration compatibility is still a problem for those backends.

Some device state representations will apply to one specific virtiofs
implementation, so the value of standardizing it beyond choosing a
unique identifier to prevent collisions is questionable.

As replied in another thread, could we categorize the different types of backend with different feature bits. Then we can start think of how to standardize the state of each?

  Does the VIRTIO
TC want to spend time reviewing implementation-specific device state

If it's implementation specific not virtio specific, I guess not. But if we use feature bits for identify the backend types, do we have the chance to make it virtio specific instead of implementation specific?

What I suggest is to allow in-band implementation-specific device state
with a unique identifier that prevents migration between incompatible

Does this mean we can only know it's impossible to migrate after a migration failure?

  Standardize device state representations that are
actually worth standardizing (like the Linux passthrough file system
where there are multiple implementations): implementors benefit from
using the standard because it saves them time and ensures migration




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]