[Virtio-fs] [PATCH] vhost-user-fs: add capability to allow migration

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 06:09:40PM +0200, Anton Kuchin wrote:
> 
> On 22/01/2023 16:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 02:36:04PM +0200, Anton Kuchin wrote:
> > > > > This flag should be set when qemu don't need to worry about any
> > > > > external state stored in vhost-user daemons during migration:
> > > > > don't fail migration, just pack generic virtio device states to
> > > > > migration stream and orchestrator guarantees that the rest of the
> > > > > state will be present at the destination to restore full context and
> > > > > continue running.
> > > > Sorry  I still do not get it.  So fundamentally, why do we need this property?
> > > > vhost-user-fs is not created by default that we'd then need opt-in to
> > > > the special "migrateable" case.
> > > > That's why I said it might make some sense as a device property as qemu
> > > > tracks whether device is unplugged for us.
> > > > 
> > > > But as written, if you are going to teach the orchestrator about
> > > > vhost-user-fs and its special needs, just teach it when to migrate and
> > > > where not to migrate.
> > > > 
> > > > Either we describe the special situation to qemu and let qemu
> > > > make an intelligent decision whether to allow migration,
> > > > or we trust the orchestrator. And if it's the latter, then 'migrate'
> > > > already says orchestrator decided to migrate.
> > > The problem I'm trying to solve is that most of vhost-user devices
> > > now block migration in qemu. And this makes sense since qemu can't
> > > extract and transfer backend daemon state. But this prevents us from
> > > updating qemu executable via local migration. So this flag is
> > > intended more as a safety check that says "I know what I'm doing".
> > > 
> > > I agree that it is not really necessary if we trust the orchestrator
> > > to request migration only when the migration can be performed in a
> > > safe way. But changing the current behavior of vhost-user-fs from
> > > "always blocks migration" to "migrates partial state whenever
> > > orchestrator requests it" seems a little  dangerous and can be
> > > misinterpreted as full support for migration in all cases.
> > It's not really different from block is it? orchestrator has to arrange
> > for backend migration. I think we just assumed there's no use-case where
> > this is practical for vhost-user-fs so we blocked it.
> > But in any case it's orchestrator's responsibility.
> 
> Yes, you are right. So do you think we should just drop the blocker
> without adding a new flag?

I'd be inclined to. I am curious what do dgilbert and stefanha think though.

-- 
MST