[Virtio-fs] [PATCH] vhost-user-fs: add capability to allow migration
Michael S. Tsirkin
mst at redhat.com
Thu Jan 19 12:51:37 UTC 2023
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 07:09:03PM +0200, Anton Kuchin wrote:
> Now any vhost-user-fs device makes VM unmigratable, that also prevents
> qemu update without stopping the VM. In most cases that makes sense
> because qemu has no way to transfer FUSE session state.
>
> But we can give an option to orchestrator to override this if it can
> guarantee that state will be preserved (e.g. it uses migration to
> update qemu and dst will run on the same host as src and use the same
> socket endpoints).
>
> This patch keeps default behavior that prevents migration with such devices
> but adds migration capability 'vhost-user-fs' to explicitly allow migration.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Kuchin <antonkuchin at yandex-team.ru>
> ---
> hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> qapi/migration.json | 7 ++++++-
> 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c
> index f5049735ac..13d920423e 100644
> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c
> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> #include "hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.h"
> #include "monitor/monitor.h"
> #include "sysemu/sysemu.h"
> +#include "migration/migration.h"
>
> static const int user_feature_bits[] = {
> VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1,
> @@ -298,9 +299,31 @@ static struct vhost_dev *vuf_get_vhost(VirtIODevice *vdev)
> return &fs->vhost_dev;
> }
>
> +static int vhost_user_fs_pre_save(void *opaque)
> +{
> + MigrationState *s = migrate_get_current();
> +
> + if (!s->enabled_capabilities[MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_VHOST_USER_FS]) {
> + error_report("Migration of vhost-user-fs devices requires internal FUSE "
> + "state of backend to be preserved. If orchestrator can "
> + "guarantee this (e.g. dst connects to the same backend "
> + "instance or backend state is migrated) set 'vhost-user-fs' "
> + "migration capability to true to enable migration.");
Isn't it possible that some backends are same and some are not?
Shouldn't this be a device property then?
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static const VMStateDescription vuf_vmstate = {
> .name = "vhost-user-fs",
> - .unmigratable = 1,
> + .minimum_version_id = 0,
> + .version_id = 0,
> + .fields = (VMStateField[]) {
> + VMSTATE_VIRTIO_DEVICE,
> + VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()
> + },
> + .pre_save = vhost_user_fs_pre_save,
> };
>
> static Property vuf_properties[] = {
> diff --git a/qapi/migration.json b/qapi/migration.json
> index 88ecf86ac8..9a229ea884 100644
> --- a/qapi/migration.json
> +++ b/qapi/migration.json
> @@ -477,6 +477,11 @@
> # will be handled faster. This is a performance feature and
> # should not affect the correctness of postcopy migration.
> # (since 7.1)
> +# @vhost-user-fs: If enabled, the migration process will allow migration of
> +# vhost-user-fs devices, this should be enabled only when
> +# backend can preserve local FUSE state e.g. for qemu update
> +# when dst reconects to the same endpoints after migration.
> +# (since 8.0)
> #
> # Features:
> # @unstable: Members @x-colo and @x-ignore-shared are experimental.
> @@ -492,7 +497,7 @@
> 'dirty-bitmaps', 'postcopy-blocktime', 'late-block-activate',
> { 'name': 'x-ignore-shared', 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
> 'validate-uuid', 'background-snapshot',
> - 'zero-copy-send', 'postcopy-preempt'] }
> + 'zero-copy-send', 'postcopy-preempt', 'vhost-user-fs'] }
I kind of dislike that it's such a specific flag. Is only vhost-user-fs
ever going to be affected? Any way to put it in a way that is more generic?
> ##
> # @MigrationCapabilityStatus:
> --
> 2.34.1
More information about the Virtio-fs
mailing list