From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50257 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOTQ6-00084C-Ct
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:31:06 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1OOTQ5-0007Lu-3l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:31:02 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40382)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1OOTQ4-0007Lg-Rd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:31:01 -0400
From: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C168A81.8060302@codemonkey.ws> (Anthony Liguori's message of
	"Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:01:05 -0500")
References: <cover.1276085283.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<20100609175215.2e2071a0@redhat.com> <m3mxv3p3o8.fsf@trasno.mitica>
	<20100611113022.27490bfe@redhat.com> <m34oh8cxyn.fsf@trasno.mitica>
	<4C1636BC.704@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <m3d3vtzjoz.fsf@trasno.mitica>
	<4C165482.6020601@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <m3iq5lcvit.fsf@trasno.mitica>
	<4C167DE4.8080104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <m3631lcruk.fsf@trasno.mitica>
	<4C168A81.8060302@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:30:57 +0200
Message-ID: <m3r5k87fku.fsf@trasno.mitica>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Add QMP migration events
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>

Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 06/14/2010 02:54 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori<aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>  wrote:

>>> What makes migration important and not savevm?
>>>      
>> That is the reason why I insist to have the events "both" in source and
>> destination.  About how to integrate savevm on the whole picture ....
>>
>> VM_SAVE_START/VM_SAVE_END/VM_RESTORE_START/VM_RESTORE_END events?
>>    
>
> If savevm is an asychronous command, then it's already there.
>
> You really want to support turning all command submissions/completions
> into events.   You could do it with two events.  The first would be
> COMMAND_REQUEST and would contain the request data and which monitor
> it occurred on.  The second would be COMMAND_RESPONSE and would
> contain the response data and which monitor it occurred on.
>
> But honestly, I think it's a stretch to say this functionality is
> really needed.

As already told, what I need is the migration ones.

The imporant case is MIGRATION_ENDED on target when migration were
sucessful.  This is the fast path, and it makes a difference here.

MIGRATION_STARTED on target is also quite "nice" to have.  At this point
libvirt has an

sleep(250ms): echo "cont"

Due to a race here in incoming migration.

As we only wanted one ending event, can agree on:

MIGRATION_STARTED(both source and target)
MIGRATION_DONE(result) (both source and target)

where result can be ok or -1 (at this point we don't have anything else
to put there).

That moves us from 4 events to 2?

Later, Juan.