From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1FC3C46CD2 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:12:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rUpmS-0008MZ-GY; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:12:12 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rUpmI-0008Ip-Ia for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:11:58 -0500 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rUpmE-0003Fu-Co for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:11:57 -0500 Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75E8421F0B; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:11:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1706627510; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nSHvlV0piFzHhWNpErE1bkN/AdgMDFNh2kgQ1DKHLg4=; b=rA/HzEOVYoTqF74Q+w1ekj8+3gmKbIXP6nz/bAU2EbotlKNt9228BRsmPAc0KSkU5uUN7A k2frpVoYm4EIe+DC09rSD736OH1fpO7GxPffxGI0GiR/einuUXcsPHxLNb9U8Qo1TzXHC4 /Fxis6YN0dmDBwoN4qjlRQrfW28TNks= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1706627510; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nSHvlV0piFzHhWNpErE1bkN/AdgMDFNh2kgQ1DKHLg4=; b=VNDlvO3w8vtRci0wqV2EVHd5qdPjjfUrfDreL+SK+Ote3luGIkC4jS9Ue70iXExkVmbcYv DY8j2SQt6xl9RUCA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1706627510; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nSHvlV0piFzHhWNpErE1bkN/AdgMDFNh2kgQ1DKHLg4=; b=rA/HzEOVYoTqF74Q+w1ekj8+3gmKbIXP6nz/bAU2EbotlKNt9228BRsmPAc0KSkU5uUN7A k2frpVoYm4EIe+DC09rSD736OH1fpO7GxPffxGI0GiR/einuUXcsPHxLNb9U8Qo1TzXHC4 /Fxis6YN0dmDBwoN4qjlRQrfW28TNks= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1706627510; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nSHvlV0piFzHhWNpErE1bkN/AdgMDFNh2kgQ1DKHLg4=; b=VNDlvO3w8vtRci0wqV2EVHd5qdPjjfUrfDreL+SK+Ote3luGIkC4jS9Ue70iXExkVmbcYv DY8j2SQt6xl9RUCA== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED6A712FF7; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:11:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id nM0oK7URuWUvdAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:11:49 +0000 From: Fabiano Rosas To: Peter Xu Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Hao Xiang , Yuan Liu , Bryan Zhang , Avihai Horon Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] migration/multifd: Separate compression ops from non-compression In-Reply-To: References: <20240126221943.26628-1-farosas@suse.de> <20240126221943.26628-2-farosas@suse.de> <87mssoe2fj.fsf@suse.de> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:11:47 -0300 Message-ID: <8734uedff0.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.10 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1; envelope-from=farosas@suse.de; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Peter Xu writes: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:42:24AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> Peter Xu writes: >> >> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 07:19:39PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> >> +static MultiFDMethods multifd_socket_ops = { >> >> + .send_setup = multifd_socket_send_setup, >> >> + .send_cleanup = multifd_socket_send_cleanup, >> >> + .send_prepare = multifd_socket_send_prepare, >> > >> > Here it's named with "socket", however not all socket-based multifd >> > migrations will go into this route, e.g., when zstd compression enabled it >> > will not go via this route, even if zstd also uses sockets as transport. >> > From that pov, this may be slightly confusing. Maybe it suites more to be >> > called "socket_plain" / "socket_no_comp"? >> > >> > One step back, I had a feeling that the current proposal tried to provide a >> > single ->ops to cover a model where we may need more than one layer of >> > abstraction. >> > >> > Since it might be helpful to allow multifd send arbitrary data (e.g. for >> > VFIO? Avihai might have an answer there..), I'll try to even consider that >> > into the picture. >> > >> > Let's consider the ultimate goal of multifd, where the simplest model could >> > look like this in my mind (I'm only discussing sender side, but it'll be >> > similar on recv side): >> > >> > prepare() send() >> > Input ----------------> IOVs ------------> iochannels >> > >> > [I used prepare/send, but please think them as generic terms, not 100% >> > aligned with what we have with existing multifd_ops, or what you proposed >> > later] >> > >> > Here what are sure, IMHO, is: >> > >> > - We always can have some input data to dump; I didn't use "guest pages" >> > just to say we may allow arbitrary data. For any multifd user that >> > would like to dump arbitrary data, they can already provide IOVs, so >> > here input can be either "MultiFDPages_t" or "IOVs". >> >> Or anything else, since the client code also has control over send(), >> no? So it could give multifd a pointer to some memory and then use >> send() to do whatever it wants with it. Multifd is just providing worker >> threads and "scheduling". > > IOVs contain the case of one single buffer, where n_iovs==1. Here I > mentioned IOVs explicitly because I want to make it part of the protocol so > that the interface might be clearer, on what is not changing, and what can > change for a multifd client. Got it. I agree. >> >> Also note that multifd clients currently _do not_ provide IOVs. They >> merely provide data to multifd (p->pages) and then convert that data >> into IOVs at prepare(). This is different, because multifd currently >> holds that p->pages (and turns that into p->normal), which means the >> client code does not need to store the data across iterations (in the >> case of RAM which is iterative). > > They provide? AFAIU that's exactly MultiFDSendParams.iov as of now, while > iov_nums is the length. Before that, the ram code needs to pass in the p->pages->offset array first. Then, that gets put into p->normal. Then, that gets put into p->iov at prepare(). So it's not a simple "fill p->iov and pass it to multifd". Hmm, could we just replace multifd_send_state->pages with a multifd_send_state->iov? I don't really understand why do we need to carry that pages->offset around. >> >> > >> > - We may always want to have IOVs to represent the buffers at some point, >> > no matter what the input it >> > >> > - We always flush the IOVs to iochannels; basically I want to say we can >> > always assume the last layer is connecting to QIOChannel APIs, while I >> > don't think there's outliers here so far, even if the send() may differ. >> > >> > Then _maybe_ it's clearer that we can have two layers of OPs? >> > >> > - prepare(): it tells how the "input" will be converted into a scatter >> > gatter list of buffers. All compression methods fall into this afaiu. >> > This has _nothing_ to do on how the buffers will be sent. For >> > arbitrary-typed input, this can already be a no-op since the IOVs >> > provided can already be passed over to send(). >> > >> > - send(): how to dump the IOVs to the iochannels. AFAIU this is motly >> > only useful for fixed-ram migrations. >> > >> > Would this be clearer, rather than keep using a single multifd_ops? >> >> Sorry, I don't see how what you describe is any different than what we >> have. And I don't see how any of this would mean more than one >> multifd_ops. We already have multifd_ops->prepare() and >> multifd_ops->send(). What am I missing? > > I meant instead of having a single MultiFDMethods, we can have > MultifdPrepareOps and MultifdSendOps separately. > > Now with single MultiFDMethods, it must always provide e.g. both prepare() > and send() in one set of OPs for one use case. What I wanted to say is > maybe it is cleaner we split it into two OPs, then all the socket-based > scenarios can already stick with the same send() method, even though they > can prepare() differently. Hmm, so zlib/zstd implement all ops except for the send one. And socket_plain and file implement all prepare hooks plus the send. So we'd have sort of a data handling layer and a transport layer. I'll see how it looks. > > IOW, for this base patchset to pave way for compression accelerators, IIUC > we don't need a send() yet so far? Should they still work pretty well with > qio_channel_writev_full_all() with proper touchups on p->write_flags just > for zero copy purposes? Yes. The point here is to just give everyone a heads-up so we avoid changing the code in incompatible ways. > > I'll have a read again to your previous multifd-packet-cleanups branch I > guess. but this series definitely doesn't apply there already. multifd-packet-cleanups attempts to replace MultiFDPages_t with a generic data structure. That's a separate issue.