On 09/19/2011 03:15 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 09/19/11 11:46, Yonit Halperin wrote:
semi-seamless migration details:
migration source side
---------------------
(1) spice_server_migrate_info (*): tell client to link
to the target side - send SPICE_MSG_MAIN_MIGRATE_BEGIN.
client_migrate_info cmd is asynchronous.
(2) Complete client_migrate_info only when the client has been connected
to the target - wait for
SPICE_MSGC_MAIN_MIGRATE_(CONNECTED|CONNECT_ERROR) or a timeout.
(3) spice_server_migrate_end: tell client migration it can switch to
the target - send
SPICE_MSG_MAIN_MIGRATE_END.
(4) client cleans up all data related to the connection to the source
and switches to the target.
It sends SPICE_MSGC_MAIN_MIGRATE_END.
So the switch-host message will not be used any more? How do you handle
compatibility to spice servers which don't support this migration scheme?
Older qemu/spice-server will still use the switch host message and the
spice client still support it.
With respect to spice-severs that doesn't support this scheme:
qemu checks #ifdef SPICE_INTERFACE_MIGRATION, and acts accordingly
(calls switch-host or migrate_end).
The spice client responds according to the server:
if <=Rhel6.0 : seamless migration
if Rhel6.1: Switch host
if Rhel6.2: semi-seamless
Each scheme has its own code pathway in the client.
This looks a bit like seamless migration half-done. What is missing to
full seamless migration support? The spice channels need to transfer the
state via client. Also qemu on the source needs to wait for that to
complete I guess? Anything else?
We are still missing keeping the target stopped till the target spice
server is restored from the data passed through the client.
Thanks to the fix Alon sent for RHBZ #729621, we could block the target
from starting using a vm state change handler, but it is a workaround...
IMHO, if we could have async notifiers for migration before it starts
and just before it completes (as we had in Rhel5), that would have been
the best solution (it will also allow us not to use client_migrate_info
for the pre-connection to the target). By async notifiers I mean
(1) notifiers that hold the migration process till they complete.
(2) to add notifications (a) before migration starts (today we receive
one only after it starts), (b) before migration completes - when the src
and target are both stopped (today we don't have control over the target
state).
enum {
SPICE_MIGRATE_CLIENT_NONE = 1,
SPICE_MIGRATE_CLIENT_WAITING,
SPICE_MIGRATE_CLIENT_READY,
};
Is that still needed?
Don't think so.
+/* migration interface */
+#define SPICE_INTERFACE_MIGRATION "migration"
+#define SPICE_INTERFACE_MIGRATION_MAJOR 1
+#define SPICE_INTERFACE_MIGRATION_MINOR 1
+typedef struct SpiceMigrateInterface SpiceMigrateInterface;
+typedef struct SpiceMigrateInstance SpiceMigrateInstance;
+typedef struct SpiceMigrateState SpiceMigrateState;
+
+struct SpiceMigrateInterface {
+ SpiceBaseInterface base;
+ void (*migrate_info_complete)(SpiceMigrateInstance *sin);
+};
+struct SpiceMigrateInstance {
+ SpiceBaseInstance base;
+ SpiceMigrateState *st;
+};
Why a new interface? The only purpose it seems to serve is adding a
single callback. It is registered unconditionally by the spice core code
in qemu. I fail to see why we can't just add the callback to the core
interface. That would save a bunch of code to handle the new interface.
I think we should try to make sure the qemu <-> spice-server migration
API can handle both semi-seamless and real seamless client migration.
I added a new interface since I think that for supporting seamless
migration we may need more callbacks (e.g., if the above async notifiers
will be implemented). IMHO, it is more readable then adding it to the
core interface.
Then the two spice servers can negotiate themself which method they
pick, without qemu being involved here. I think the minimum we'll need
here is a second notification (when spice channel state migration via
slient is finished), either using a second callback or by adding a
reason argument to the one we have. But maybe just blocking in
spice_server_migrate_end() works too (the guest is stopped at that point
anyway, so going async doesn't buy us that much here ...).
What is the plan for the master branch? How will this work with
multiclient enabled?
For one client - the same.
For multiclient - not sure yet, maybe for small number of clients do the
same, and for the rest fall back to switch_host? (with the risk of
losing the ticket).
cheers,
Gerd
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
