| Message ID | 20191025232000.25857-1-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | not use multifd during postcopy | expand |
Ping for comments. On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 07:19:58AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >We don't support multifd during postcopy, but user still could enable >both multifd and postcopy. This leads to migration failure. > >Patch 1 does proper cleanup, otherwise we may have data corruption. >Patch 2 does the main job. > >BTW, current multifd synchronization method needs a cleanup. Will send another >patch set. > >Wei Yang (2): > migration/multifd: clean pages after filling packet > migration/multifd: not use multifd during postcopy > > migration/ram.c | 15 ++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >-- >2.17.1
Would this one be picked up this time? On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 07:19:58AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >We don't support multifd during postcopy, but user still could enable >both multifd and postcopy. This leads to migration failure. > >Patch 1 does proper cleanup, otherwise we may have data corruption. >Patch 2 does the main job. > >BTW, current multifd synchronization method needs a cleanup. Will send another >patch set. > >Wei Yang (2): > migration/multifd: clean pages after filling packet > migration/multifd: not use multifd during postcopy > > migration/ram.c | 15 ++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >-- >2.17.1
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:35:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >Would this one be picked up this time? Happy new year to all. Can I ask the plan for this patch set? > >On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 07:19:58AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >>We don't support multifd during postcopy, but user still could enable >>both multifd and postcopy. This leads to migration failure. >> >>Patch 1 does proper cleanup, otherwise we may have data corruption. >>Patch 2 does the main job. >> >>BTW, current multifd synchronization method needs a cleanup. Will send another >>patch set. >> >>Wei Yang (2): >> migration/multifd: clean pages after filling packet >> migration/multifd: not use multifd during postcopy >> >> migration/ram.c | 15 ++++++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >>-- >>2.17.1 > >-- >Wei Yang >Help you, Help me
Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:35:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >>Would this one be picked up this time? > > Happy new year to all. > > Can I ask the plan for this patch set? queued > >> >>On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 07:19:58AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >>>We don't support multifd during postcopy, but user still could enable >>>both multifd and postcopy. This leads to migration failure. >>> >>>Patch 1 does proper cleanup, otherwise we may have data corruption. >>>Patch 2 does the main job. >>> >>>BTW, current multifd synchronization method needs a cleanup. Will send another >>>patch set. >>> >>>Wei Yang (2): >>> migration/multifd: clean pages after filling packet >>> migration/multifd: not use multifd during postcopy >>> >>> migration/ram.c | 15 ++++++++++----- >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>>-- >>>2.17.1 >> >>-- >>Wei Yang >>Help you, Help me
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 10:50:25AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote: >Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:35:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >>>Would this one be picked up this time? >> >> Happy new year to all. >> >> Can I ask the plan for this patch set? > >queued > Thanks :-)