Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4 for 2.3] vhost-user live migration support

[Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 03:43:06PM +0300, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> rYR8N8f/ookveMRL7BfPnj5lw+EJZd+uG+v/lZnBuWidyQ4r
> 	g586/P1rPsQw8p6wT+M7LnqvMLZM9eWq2ht53Bd5liqxFGckGmoxFxUnAgC5sFKthAIAAA==
> Status: O
> Content-Length: 4853
> Lines: 66
> 
>  Hello!
> 
> > However, I'm more curious about the ping loss? Did you still see
> > that? And to be more specific, have the wireshark captured the
> > GRAP from the guest?
> 
>  Yes, everything is fine.

Great!

> 
> root@nfv_test_x86_64 /var/log/libvirt/qemu # tshark -i ovs-br0
> Running as user "root" and group "root". This could be dangerous.
> Capturing on 'ovs-br0'
>   1   0.000000 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast    ARP 42 Gratuitous ARP for 192.168.6.2 (Request)
>   2   0.000024 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::1      ICMPv6 86 Neighbor Advertisement fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a (ovr) is at
> 52:54:00:3b:83:1a
>   3   0.049490 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast    ARP 42 Gratuitous ARP for 192.168.6.2 (Request)
>   4   0.049497 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::1      ICMPv6 86 Neighbor Advertisement fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a (ovr) is at
> 52:54:00:3b:83:1a
>   5   0.199485 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast    ARP 42 Gratuitous ARP for 192.168.6.2 (Request)
>   6   0.199492 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::1      ICMPv6 86 Neighbor Advertisement fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a (ovr) is at
> 52:54:00:3b:83:1a
>   7   0.449500 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast    ARP 42 Gratuitous ARP for 192.168.6.2 (Request)
>   8   0.449508 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::1      ICMPv6 86 Neighbor Advertisement fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a (ovr) is at
> 52:54:00:3b:83:1a
>   9   0.517229  192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) request  id=0x04af, seq=70/17920, ttl=64
>  10   0.517277  192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) reply    id=0x04af, seq=70/17920, ttl=64 (request in 9)
>  11   0.799521 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> Broadcast    ARP 42 Gratuitous ARP for 192.168.6.2 (Request)
>  12   0.799553 fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a -> ff02::1      ICMPv6 86 Neighbor Advertisement fe80::5054:ff:fe3b:831a (ovr) is at
> 52:54:00:3b:83:1a
>  13   1.517210  192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) request  id=0x04af, seq=71/18176, ttl=64
>  14   1.517238  192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) reply    id=0x04af, seq=71/18176, ttl=64 (request in 13)
>  15   2.517219  192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) request  id=0x04af, seq=72/18432, ttl=64
>  16   2.517256  192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) reply    id=0x04af, seq=72/18432, ttl=64 (request in 15)
>  17   3.517497  192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) request  id=0x04af, seq=73/18688, ttl=64
>  18   3.517518  192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) reply    id=0x04af, seq=73/18688, ttl=64 (request in 17)
>  19   4.517219  192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) request  id=0x04af, seq=74/18944, ttl=64
>  20   4.517237  192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) reply    id=0x04af, seq=74/18944, ttl=64 (request in 19)
>  21   5.517222  192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) request  id=0x04af, seq=75/19200, ttl=64
>  22   5.517242  192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) reply    id=0x04af, seq=75/19200, ttl=64 (request in 21)
>  23   6.517235  192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) request  id=0x04af, seq=76/19456, ttl=64
>  24   6.517256  192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) reply    id=0x04af, seq=76/19456, ttl=64 (request in 23)
>  25   6.531466 be:e1:71:c1:47:4d -> RealtekU_3b:83:1a ARP 42 Who has 192.168.6.2?  Tell 192.168.6.1
>  26   6.531619 RealtekU_3b:83:1a -> be:e1:71:c1:47:4d ARP 42 192.168.6.2 is at 52:54:00:3b:83:1a
>  27   7.517212  192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) request  id=0x04af, seq=77/19712, ttl=64
>  28   7.517229  192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2  ICMP 98 Echo (ping) reply    id=0x04af, seq=77/19712, ttl=64 (request in 27)
> 
>  But there's one important detail here. Any replicated network interfaces (LOCAL port in my example) should be fully cloned on both
> hosts, including MAC addresses. Otherwise after the migration the guest continues to send packets to old MAC, and, obvious, there's
> still ping loss until it redoes the ARP for its ping target.

I see. And here I care more about whether we can get the GARP from the
target guest just after the migration. If you can, everything should
be fine.
> 
> >  And what's the output of 'grep virtio /proc/interrupts' inside guest?
> 
> 11:          0          0          0          0   IO-APIC  11-fasteoi   uhci_hcd:usb1, virtio3
>  24:          0          0          0          0   PCI-MSI 114688-edge      virtio2-config
>  25:       3544          0          0          0   PCI-MSI 114689-edge      virtio2-req.0
>  26:         10          0          0          0   PCI-MSI 49152-edge      virtio0-config

The GUEST_ANNOUNCE has indeed been triggered. That's great! I just have
no idea why I can't get any config IRQ from the guest after the migration.
(I can for migratin inside one same host, but not on two hosts).

In my first tries, I just got an error message telling me that the MSI is
just lost. I then found it may because I'm using a customized guest kernel.
I then switched to the kernel shipped by Fedora 22, I no longer see such
error, but I still don't see such interrupt generated inside the guest, either.

It might still be an issue on my side. Even it's not, it's likely a KVM
bug, but not from vhost-user. And glad it works on your side :)

So, I will send v2 tomorow.

	--yliu