linux-kernel - Re: [RFC Patch 00/12] IXGBE: Add live migration support for SRIOV NIC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1445530650.5050.19.camel@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:17:30 -0600
From:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Cc:	Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> (mst@...hat.com)" 
	<mst@...hat.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	carolyn.wyborny@...el.com,
	"Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
	eddie.dong@...el.com, nrupal.jani@...el.com,
	yang.z.zhang@...el.com, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	qemu-devel@...gnu.org, emil.s.tantilov@...el.com,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	john.ronciak@...el.com,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, matthew.vick@...el.com,
	Mitch Williams <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 00/12] IXGBE: Add live migration support for SRIOV
 NIC

On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 18:58 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Alex Williamson
> <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > This is why the typical VF agnostic approach here is to using bonding
> > and fail over to a emulated device during migration, so performance
> > suffers, but downtime is something acceptable.
> 
> bonding in the VM isn't a zero touch solution, right? is it really acceptable?

The bonding solution requires configuring the bond in the guest and
doing the hot unplug/re-plug around migration.  It's zero touch in that
it works on current code with any PF/VF, but it's certainly not zero
configuration in the guest.  Is what acceptable?  The configuration?
The performance?  The downtime?  I don't think we can hope to improve on
the downtime of an emulated device, but obviously the configuration and
performance are not always acceptable or we wouldn't be seeing so many
people working on migration of assigned devices.  Thanks,

Alex

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/