hw/vfio/pci.h | 3 +++ include/hw/display/ramfb.h | 4 ++++ hw/core/machine.c | 5 +++- hw/display/ramfb-standalone.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++ hw/display/ramfb.c | 19 +++++++++++++++ hw/vfio/display.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++ hw/vfio/pci.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ stubs/ramfb.c | 2 ++ 8 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> Hi, Implement RAMFB migration, and add properties to enable it only on >= 8.2 machines, + a few related cleanups. Cedric, did you get the chance to test the VFIO display/ramfb code? thanks v4: (Laszlo review and suggestions) - change migrate_needed() to assert(ramfb_exists) - rename vfio_display_needed() to vfio_display_migration_needed(), update the condition and associated comment - move the ramfb-migrate option check and add a check for ramfb=on - add a stub to fix compilation on some architectures v3: - add a "x-" prefix to properties, as they are not meant for users. - RAMFB now exports a ramfb_vmstate for actual devices to include - VFIOPCIDevice now has a VFIODisplay optional subsection whenever ramfb migration is required (untested) Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859424 Marc-André Lureau (3): ramfb: add migration support ramfb-standalone: add migration support hw/vfio: add ramfb migration support hw/vfio/pci.h | 3 +++ include/hw/display/ramfb.h | 4 ++++ hw/core/machine.c | 5 +++- hw/display/ramfb-standalone.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++ hw/display/ramfb.c | 19 +++++++++++++++ hw/vfio/display.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++ hw/vfio/pci.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ stubs/ramfb.c | 2 ++ 8 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.41.0
On 10/5/23 13:30, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
>
> Hi,
>
> Implement RAMFB migration, and add properties to enable it only on >= 8.2
> machines, + a few related cleanups.
>
> Cedric, did you get the chance to test the VFIO display/ramfb code?
Done with a :
GPU 00000000:00:03.0
Product Name : GRID RTX6000-1Q
Product Brand : NVIDIA RTX Virtual Workstation
rhle9+gdm was running and it looks pretty good after migration.
I would like to go through the models now (I really don't like the
VFIODisplay attributes being in VFIOPCIDevice, it's ugly)
Thanks,
C.
>
> thanks
>
> v4: (Laszlo review and suggestions)
> - change migrate_needed() to assert(ramfb_exists)
> - rename vfio_display_needed() to vfio_display_migration_needed(),
> update the condition and associated comment
> - move the ramfb-migrate option check and add a check for ramfb=on
> - add a stub to fix compilation on some architectures
>
> v3:
> - add a "x-" prefix to properties, as they are not meant for users.
> - RAMFB now exports a ramfb_vmstate for actual devices to include
> - VFIOPCIDevice now has a VFIODisplay optional subsection whenever ramfb
> migration is required (untested)
>
> Fixes:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859424
>
> Marc-André Lureau (3):
> ramfb: add migration support
> ramfb-standalone: add migration support
> hw/vfio: add ramfb migration support
>
> hw/vfio/pci.h | 3 +++
> include/hw/display/ramfb.h | 4 ++++
> hw/core/machine.c | 5 +++-
> hw/display/ramfb-standalone.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++
> hw/display/ramfb.c | 19 +++++++++++++++
> hw/vfio/display.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++
> hw/vfio/pci.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> stubs/ramfb.c | 2 ++
> 8 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
On 10/5/23 13:30, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> > > Hi, > > Implement RAMFB migration, and add properties to enable it only on >= 8.2 > machines, + a few related cleanups. > > Cedric, did you get the chance to test the VFIO display/ramfb code? Nope. I was busy with VFIO stuff. I haven't even read Laszlo's email yet. I will try this or next week. That said, could we avoid adding another migration property in VFIOPCIDevice and use the available "enable-migration" ? C. > thanks > > v4: (Laszlo review and suggestions) > - change migrate_needed() to assert(ramfb_exists) > - rename vfio_display_needed() to vfio_display_migration_needed(), > update the condition and associated comment > - move the ramfb-migrate option check and add a check for ramfb=on > - add a stub to fix compilation on some architectures > > v3: > - add a "x-" prefix to properties, as they are not meant for users. > - RAMFB now exports a ramfb_vmstate for actual devices to include > - VFIOPCIDevice now has a VFIODisplay optional subsection whenever ramfb > migration is required (untested) > > Fixes: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859424 > > Marc-André Lureau (3): > ramfb: add migration support > ramfb-standalone: add migration support > hw/vfio: add ramfb migration support > > hw/vfio/pci.h | 3 +++ > include/hw/display/ramfb.h | 4 ++++ > hw/core/machine.c | 5 +++- > hw/display/ramfb-standalone.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++ > hw/display/ramfb.c | 19 +++++++++++++++ > hw/vfio/display.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++ > hw/vfio/pci.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > stubs/ramfb.c | 2 ++ > 8 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >
On 10/5/23 14:01, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > On 10/5/23 13:30, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: >> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> >> >> Hi, >> >> Implement RAMFB migration, and add properties to enable it only on >= 8.2 >> machines, + a few related cleanups. >> >> Cedric, did you get the chance to test the VFIO display/ramfb code? > > Nope. I was busy with VFIO stuff. I haven't even read Laszlo's > email yet. I will try this or next week. > > That said, could we avoid adding another migration property in > VFIOPCIDevice and use the available "enable-migration" ? I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect we can't / shouldn't do that. "x-ramfb-migrate" is effectively a machine type compat prop, so if it doesn't *precisely* line up with enable-migration (i.e., if they aren't equivalent), then we shouldn't merge them. AFAICT, a 8.1 machine type may have "enable-migration" set, but it should still have "x-ramfb-migrate" clear. Laszlo
On 10/5/23 16:16, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 10/5/23 14:01, Cédric Le Goater wrote: >> On 10/5/23 13:30, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: >>> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Implement RAMFB migration, and add properties to enable it only on >= 8.2 >>> machines, + a few related cleanups. >>> >>> Cedric, did you get the chance to test the VFIO display/ramfb code? >> >> Nope. I was busy with VFIO stuff. I haven't even read Laszlo's >> email yet. I will try this or next week. >> >> That said, could we avoid adding another migration property in >> VFIOPCIDevice and use the available "enable-migration" ? > > I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect we can't / shouldn't do that. > "x-ramfb-migrate" is effectively a machine type compat prop, so if it > doesn't *precisely* line up with enable-migration (i.e., if they aren't > equivalent), then we shouldn't merge them. AFAICT, a 8.1 machine type > may have "enable-migration" set, but it should still have > "x-ramfb-migrate" clear. or more precisely, not clear, but "auto". Laszlo
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.