From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34441 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ov4ST-0003Cw-Bb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 04:32:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ov4SS-00046Q-4a for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 04:32:13 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27108) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ov4SR-000465-Ud for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 04:32:12 -0400 Message-ID: <4C8DE19B.9090309@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:32:27 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1284213896-12705-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <1284213896-12705-4-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1284213896-12705-4-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/3] disk: don't read from disk until the guest starts List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Juan Quintela , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi Am 11.09.2010 16:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > This fixes a couple nasty problems relating to live migration. > > 1) When dealing with shared storage with weak coherence (i.e. NFS), even if > we re-read, we may end up with undesired caching. By delaying any reads > until we absolutely have to, we decrease the likelihood of any undesirable > caching. > > 2) When dealing with copy-on-read, the local storage acts as a cache. We need > to make sure to avoid any reads to avoid polluting the local cache. > > Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori I think we should also delay even opening the image file at all to the latest possible point to avoid that new problems of this kind are introduced. Ideally, opening the image would be the very last thing we do before telling the migration source that we're set and it should close the images. Even better would be to only open the image when the source has already closed it (we could completely avoid the invalidation/reopen then), but I think you were afraid that we might lose the image on both ends. Kevin