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 A45DAC282D1 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:49:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tqBb3-000478-Jf; Thu, 06 Mar 2025 08:49:09 -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 1tqBb1-00046s-Kp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2025 08:49:08 -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 1tqBay-0006Ad-Cq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2025 08:49:06 -0500 Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (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 A688D211CD; Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:48:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1741268939; 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=uPAT4g6NHqVdnUCwope0dxqYQd8GSVk1fhZ35uxuT+I=; b=Rb3Ee/NYSCWYou79rVSymilyqDHkeGT9h55Ty/UkrSGR/XikzfbAJvu99tUbzpeyprGHCj IK+/WoUTbvN+z0vFES+3rnoNcx2sKnhycyO7uascHJMPQKfwpdI9ra9DWTCYXt7HMEGtGn 4ip0+Ev8G96jWM9l+Ps4rGuACtpZA7I= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1741268939; 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=uPAT4g6NHqVdnUCwope0dxqYQd8GSVk1fhZ35uxuT+I=; b=zc8+JH15RPW9aAqQXC44UV/XBH9hKoIF/fmepKz8Vs7riVMWK90PiYYodgTVioO0EYshfK 1tSL0qa2dGPkDKDw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b="Rb3Ee/NY"; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=zc8+JH15 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1741268939; 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=uPAT4g6NHqVdnUCwope0dxqYQd8GSVk1fhZ35uxuT+I=; b=Rb3Ee/NYSCWYou79rVSymilyqDHkeGT9h55Ty/UkrSGR/XikzfbAJvu99tUbzpeyprGHCj IK+/WoUTbvN+z0vFES+3rnoNcx2sKnhycyO7uascHJMPQKfwpdI9ra9DWTCYXt7HMEGtGn 4ip0+Ev8G96jWM9l+Ps4rGuACtpZA7I= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1741268939; 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=uPAT4g6NHqVdnUCwope0dxqYQd8GSVk1fhZ35uxuT+I=; b=zc8+JH15RPW9aAqQXC44UV/XBH9hKoIF/fmepKz8Vs7riVMWK90PiYYodgTVioO0EYshfK 1tSL0qa2dGPkDKDw== 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 1DB8813A61; Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:48:58 +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 8FdUM8qnyWe4bgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 06 Mar 2025 13:48:58 +0000 From: Fabiano Rosas To: Prasad Pandit Cc: Peter Xu , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, berrange@redhat.com, Prasad Pandit Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Allow to enable multifd and postcopy migration together In-Reply-To: References: <20250228121749.553184-1-ppandit@redhat.com> <87frjy2k8z.fsf@suse.de> <878qpjvaw5.fsf@suse.de> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 10:48:56 -0300 Message-ID: <875xkmuv5j.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A688D211CD X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.51 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RBL_SPAMHAUS_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; SPAMHAUS_XBL(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:rdns,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,suse.de:dkim,suse.de:mid,suse.de:email]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.de:+] X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd1.dmz-prg2.suse.org 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: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 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 Prasad Pandit writes: > Hello Fabiano, > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 19:26, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> Note that none of this is out of the ordinary, you'll find such >> discussions in any thread on this community. It may feel arbitrary to >> you because that's tacit knowledge we gathered along the years. > > * I understand. I don't find it arbitrary. > >> We need an extra patch that reads: >> >> migration: Refactor channel discovery mechanism >> >> The various logical migration channels don't have a standardized way of >> advertising themselves and their connections may be seen out of order >> by the migration destination. When a new connection arrives, the >> incoming migration currently make use of heuristics to determine which >> channel it belongs to. >> >> The next few patches will need to change how the multifd and postcopy >> capabilities interact and that affects the channel discovery heuristic. >> >> Refactor the channel discovery heuristic to make it less opaque and >> simplify the subsequent patches. >> >> >> --- >> >> You'd move all of the channel discovery code into this patch. Some of it >> will be unreacheable because multifd is not yet allowed with postcopy, >> but that's fine. You can mention it on the commit message. > > Please see: > -> https://privatebin.net/?dad6f052dd986f9f#FULnfrCV29NkQpvsQyvWuU4HdYjDwFbUPbDtvLro7mwi > > * Does this division look okay? > Yes. >> About moving the code out of migration.c, it was a suggestion that >> you're free to push back. Ideally, doing the work would be faster than >> arguing against it on the mailing list. But that's fine. > > * Same here, I'm not against moving that code part to connection.c OR > doing the work. My suggestion has been to do that movement in another > series and not try to do everything in this one series. > >> About the hang in the test. It doesn't reproduce often, but once it >> does, it hangs forever (although I haven't waited that long). > > * Okay, I'm not seeing it or able to reproduce it across 3 different > machines. One is my laptop and the other 2 are servers wherein I'm > testing migrations of guests with 64G/128G of RAM and guest dirtying > memory to the tune of 68M/128M/256M bytes. I'll keep an eye on it if I > find something. Usually a loaded (or slow) machine is needed to reproduce multifd synchronization issues. Sometimes running the test in a loop in parallel with some other workload helps to uncover them. The CI also tends to have slower machines that hit these problems.