Message ID | 20221220183616.228621-1-manish.mishra@nutanix.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | check magic value for deciding the mapping of channels | expand |
Hi Peter, Daniel, Just a gentle reminder on this patch if it can be merged, and really sorry i see now earlier reminders i sent were on v6[0/2] and somehow you were not CCed on that earlier. You were CCed just on v6[1/2] and v6[2,2] so that's why probably missed it. Thanks Manish Mishra On 21/12/22 12:06 am, manish.mishra wrote: > Current logic assumes that channel connections on the destination side are > always established in the same order as the source and the first one will > always be the main channel followed by the multifid or post-copy > preemption channel. This may not be always true, as even if a channel has a > connection established on the source side it can be in the pending state on > the destination side and a newer connection can be established first. > Basically causing out of order mapping of channels on the destination side. > Currently, all channels except post-copy preempt send a magic number, this > patch uses that magic number to decide the type of channel. This logic is > applicable only for precopy(multifd) live migration, as mentioned, the > post-copy preempt channel does not send any magic number. Also, tls live > migrations already does tls handshake before creating other channels, so > this issue is not possible with tls, hence this logic is avoided for tls > live migrations. This patch uses MSG_PEEK to check the magic number of > channels so that current data/control stream management remains > un-effected. > > v2: > TLS does not support MSG_PEEK, so V1 was broken for tls live > migrations. For tls live migration, while initializing main channel > tls handshake is done before we can create other channels, so this > issue is not possible for tls live migrations. In V2 added a check > to avoid checking magic number for tls live migration and fallback > to older method to decide mapping of channels on destination side. > > v3: > 1. Split change in two patches, io patch for read_peek routines, > migration patch for migration related changes. > 2. Add flags to io_readv calls to get extra read flags like > MSG_PEEK. > 3. Some other minor fixes. > > v4: > 1. Removed common *all_eof routines for read peek and added one > specific to live migration. > 2. Updated to use qemu_co_sleep_ns instead of qio_channel_yield. > 3. Some other minor fixes. > > v5: > 1. Handle busy-wait in migration_channel_read_peek due partial reads. > > v6: > With earlier patch, multifd_load_setup was done only in > migration_incoming_setup but if multifd channel is received before > default channel, multifd channels will be uninitialized. Moved > multifd_load_setup to migration_ioc_process_incoming. > > > manish.mishra (2): > io: Add support for MSG_PEEK for socket channel > migration: check magic value for deciding the mapping of channels > > chardev/char-socket.c | 4 +-- > include/io/channel.h | 6 ++++ > io/channel-buffer.c | 1 + > io/channel-command.c | 1 + > io/channel-file.c | 1 + > io/channel-null.c | 1 + > io/channel-socket.c | 17 ++++++++- > io/channel-tls.c | 1 + > io/channel-websock.c | 1 + > io/channel.c | 16 ++++++--- > migration/channel-block.c | 1 + > migration/channel.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > migration/channel.h | 5 +++ > migration/migration.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++--------- > migration/multifd.c | 19 +++++----- > migration/multifd.h | 2 +- > migration/postcopy-ram.c | 5 +-- > migration/postcopy-ram.h | 2 +- > scsi/qemu-pr-helper.c | 2 +- > tests/qtest/tpm-emu.c | 2 +- > tests/unit/test-io-channel-socket.c | 1 + > util/vhost-user-server.c | 2 +- > 22 files changed, 148 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) >
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 08:29:08PM +0530, manish.mishra wrote: > Hi Peter, Daniel, > > Just a gentle reminder on this patch if it can be merged, and really > sorry i see now earlier reminders i sent were on v6[0/2] and somehow you > were not CCed on that earlier. You were CCed just on v6[1/2] and v6[2,2] > so that's why probably missed it. Yes I think so. For some reason I guess Juan missed this set when sending the most recent PR. We should pick them up soon.
On 31/01/23 8:47 pm, Peter Xu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 08:29:08PM +0530, manish.mishra wrote: >> Hi Peter, Daniel, >> >> Just a gentle reminder on this patch if it can be merged, and really >> sorry i see now earlier reminders i sent were on v6[0/2] and somehow you >> were not CCed on that earlier. You were CCed just on v6[1/2] and v6[2,2] >> so that's why probably missed it. > Yes I think so. For some reason I guess Juan missed this set when sending > the most recent PR. We should pick them up soon. > Thanks Peter :)