Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2 04/20] So we use multifd to transmit zero pages.

[Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de>]

Hao Xiang <hao.xiang@bytedance.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 8:28 PM Hao Xiang <hao.xiang@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 7:14 AM Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hao Xiang <hao.xiang@bytedance.com> writes:
>> >
>> > > From: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
>> > > Reviewed-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
>> > > ---
>> > >  migration/multifd.c |  7 ++++---
>> > >  migration/options.c | 13 +++++++------
>> > >  migration/ram.c     | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> > >  qapi/migration.json |  1 -
>> > >  4 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/migration/multifd.c b/migration/multifd.c
>> > > index 1b994790d5..1198ffde9c 100644
>> > > --- a/migration/multifd.c
>> > > +++ b/migration/multifd.c
>> > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>> > >  #include "qemu/osdep.h"
>> > >  #include "qemu/cutils.h"
>> > >  #include "qemu/rcu.h"
>> > > +#include "qemu/cutils.h"
>> > >  #include "exec/target_page.h"
>> > >  #include "sysemu/sysemu.h"
>> > >  #include "exec/ramblock.h"
>> > > @@ -459,7 +460,6 @@ static int multifd_send_pages(QEMUFile *f)
>> > >      p->packet_num = multifd_send_state->packet_num++;
>> > >      multifd_send_state->pages = p->pages;
>> > >      p->pages = pages;
>> > > -
>> > >      qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
>> > >      qemu_sem_post(&p->sem);
>> > >
>> > > @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ static void *multifd_send_thread(void *opaque)
>> > >      MigrationThread *thread = NULL;
>> > >      Error *local_err = NULL;
>> > >      /* qemu older than 8.2 don't understand zero page on multifd channel */
>> > > -    bool use_zero_page = !migrate_use_main_zero_page();
>> > > +    bool use_multifd_zero_page = !migrate_use_main_zero_page();
>> > >      int ret = 0;
>> > >      bool use_zero_copy_send = migrate_zero_copy_send();
>> > >
>> > > @@ -713,6 +713,7 @@ static void *multifd_send_thread(void *opaque)
>> > >              RAMBlock *rb = p->pages->block;
>> > >              uint64_t packet_num = p->packet_num;
>> > >              uint32_t flags;
>> > > +
>> > >              p->normal_num = 0;
>> > >              p->zero_num = 0;
>> > >
>> > > @@ -724,7 +725,7 @@ static void *multifd_send_thread(void *opaque)
>> > >
>> > >              for (int i = 0; i < p->pages->num; i++) {
>> > >                  uint64_t offset = p->pages->offset[i];
>> > > -                if (use_zero_page &&
>> > > +                if (use_multifd_zero_page &&
>> >
>> > We could have a new function in multifd_ops for zero page
>> > handling. We're already considering an accelerator for the compression
>> > method in the other series[1] and in this series we're adding an
>> > accelerator for zero page checking. It's about time we make the
>> > multifd_ops generic instead of only compression/no compression.
>>
>> Sorry I overlooked this email earlier.
>> I will extend the multifd_ops interface and add a new API for zero
>> page checking.
>>
>> >
>> > 1- [PATCH v2 0/4] Live Migration Acceleration with IAA Compression
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231109154638.488213-1-yuan1.liu@intel.com
>> >
>> > >                      buffer_is_zero(rb->host + offset, p->page_size)) {
>> > >                      p->zero[p->zero_num] = offset;
>> > >                      p->zero_num++;
>> > > diff --git a/migration/options.c b/migration/options.c
>> > > index 00c0c4a0d6..97d121d4d7 100644
>> > > --- a/migration/options.c
>> > > +++ b/migration/options.c
>> > > @@ -195,6 +195,7 @@ Property migration_properties[] = {
>> > >      DEFINE_PROP_MIG_CAP("x-block", MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_BLOCK),
>> > >      DEFINE_PROP_MIG_CAP("x-return-path", MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_RETURN_PATH),
>> > >      DEFINE_PROP_MIG_CAP("x-multifd", MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_MULTIFD),
>> > > +    DEFINE_PROP_MIG_CAP("x-main-zero-page", MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_MAIN_ZERO_PAGE),
>> > >      DEFINE_PROP_MIG_CAP("x-background-snapshot",
>> > >              MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_BACKGROUND_SNAPSHOT),
>> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_LINUX
>> > > @@ -288,13 +289,9 @@ bool migrate_multifd(void)
>> > >
>> > >  bool migrate_use_main_zero_page(void)
>> > >  {
>> > > -    //MigrationState *s;
>> > > -
>> > > -    //s = migrate_get_current();
>> > > +    MigrationState *s = migrate_get_current();
>> > >
>> > > -    // We will enable this when we add the right code.
>> > > -    // return s->enabled_capabilities[MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_MAIN_ZERO_PAGE];
>> > > -    return true;
>> > > +    return s->capabilities[MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_MAIN_ZERO_PAGE];
>> >
>> > What happens if we disable main-zero-page while multifd is not enabled?
>>
>> In ram.c
>> ...
>> if (migrate_multifd() && !migrate_use_main_zero_page()) {
>> migration_ops->ram_save_target_page = ram_save_target_page_multifd;
>> } else {
>> migration_ops->ram_save_target_page = ram_save_target_page_legacy;
>> }
>> ...
>>
>> So if main-zero-page is disabled and multifd is also disabled, it will
>> go with the "else" path, which is the legacy path
>> ram_save_target_page_legacy() and do zero page checking from the main
>> thread.
>>
>> >
>> > >  }
>> > >
>> > >  bool migrate_pause_before_switchover(void)
>> > > @@ -457,6 +454,7 @@ INITIALIZE_MIGRATE_CAPS_SET(check_caps_background_snapshot,
>> > >      MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_LATE_BLOCK_ACTIVATE,
>> > >      MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_RETURN_PATH,
>> > >      MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_MULTIFD,
>> > > +    MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_MAIN_ZERO_PAGE,
>> > >      MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_PAUSE_BEFORE_SWITCHOVER,
>> > >      MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_AUTO_CONVERGE,
>> > >      MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_RELEASE_RAM,
>> > > @@ -534,6 +532,9 @@ bool migrate_caps_check(bool *old_caps, bool *new_caps, Error **errp)
>> > >              error_setg(errp, "Postcopy is not yet compatible with multifd");
>> > >              return false;
>> > >          }
>> > > +        if (new_caps[MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_MAIN_ZERO_PAGE]) {
>> > > +            error_setg(errp, "Postcopy is not yet compatible with main zero copy");
>> > > +        }
>> >
>> > Won't this will breaks compatibility for postcopy? A command that used
>> > to work now will have to disable main-zero-page first.
>>
>> main-zero-page is disabled by default.
>>
>> >
>> > >      }
>> > >
>> > >      if (new_caps[MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_BACKGROUND_SNAPSHOT]) {
>> > > diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
>> > > index 8c7886ab79..f7a42feff2 100644
>> > > --- a/migration/ram.c
>> > > +++ b/migration/ram.c
>> > > @@ -2059,17 +2059,42 @@ static int ram_save_target_page_legacy(RAMState *rs, PageSearchStatus *pss)
>> > >      if (save_zero_page(rs, pss, offset)) {
>> > >          return 1;
>> > >      }
>> > > -
>> > >      /*
>> > > -     * Do not use multifd in postcopy as one whole host page should be
>> > > -     * placed.  Meanwhile postcopy requires atomic update of pages, so even
>> > > -     * if host page size == guest page size the dest guest during run may
>> > > -     * still see partially copied pages which is data corruption.
>> > > +     * Do not use multifd for:
>> > > +     * 1. Compression as the first page in the new block should be posted out
>> > > +     *    before sending the compressed page
>> > > +     * 2. In postcopy as one whole host page should be placed
>> > >       */
>> > > -    if (migrate_multifd() && !migration_in_postcopy()) {
>> > > +    if (!migrate_compress() && migrate_multifd() && !migration_in_postcopy()) {
>> > > +        return ram_save_multifd_page(pss->pss_channel, block, offset);
>> > > +    }
>> >
>> > This could go into ram_save_target_page_multifd like so:
>> >
>> > if (!migrate_compress() && !migration_in_postcopy() && !migration_main_zero_page()) {
>> >     return ram_save_multifd_page(pss->pss_channel, block, offset);
>> > } else {
>> >   return ram_save_target_page_legacy();
>> > }
>> >
>> > > +
>> > > +    return ram_save_page(rs, pss);
>> > > +}
>> > > +
>> > > +/**
>> > > + * ram_save_target_page_multifd: save one target page
>> > > + *
>> > > + * Returns the number of pages written
>> > > + *
>> > > + * @rs: current RAM state
>> > > + * @pss: data about the page we want to send
>> > > + */
>> > > +static int ram_save_target_page_multifd(RAMState *rs, PageSearchStatus *pss)
>> > > +{
>> > > +    RAMBlock *block = pss->block;
>> > > +    ram_addr_t offset = ((ram_addr_t)pss->page) << TARGET_PAGE_BITS;
>> > > +    int res;
>> > > +
>> > > +    if (!migration_in_postcopy()) {
>> > >          return ram_save_multifd_page(pss->pss_channel, block, offset);
>> > >      }
>> > >
>> > > +    res = save_zero_page(rs, pss, offset);
>> > > +    if (res > 0) {
>> > > +        return res;
>> > > +    }
>> > > +
>> > >      return ram_save_page(rs, pss);
>> > >  }
>> > >
>> > > @@ -2982,9 +3007,15 @@ static int ram_save_setup(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque)
>> > >      }
>> > >
>> > >      migration_ops = g_malloc0(sizeof(MigrationOps));
>> > > -    migration_ops->ram_save_target_page = ram_save_target_page_legacy;
>> > > +
>> > > +    if (migrate_multifd() && !migrate_use_main_zero_page()) {
>> > > +        migration_ops->ram_save_target_page = ram_save_target_page_multifd;
>> > > +    } else {
>> > > +        migration_ops->ram_save_target_page = ram_save_target_page_legacy;
>> > > +    }
>> >
>> > This should not check main-zero-page. Just have multifd vs. legacy and
>> > have the multifd function defer to _legacy if main-zero-page or
>> > in_postcopy.
>>
>> I noticed that ram_save_target_page_legacy and
>> ram_save_target_page_multifd have a lot of overlap and are quite
>> confusing. I can refactor this path and take-in your comments here.
>>
>> 1) Remove ram_save_multifd_page() call from
>> ram_save_target_page_legacy(). ram_save_multifd_page() will only be
>> called in ram_save_target_page_multifd().
>> 2) Remove save_zero_page() and ram_save_page() from
>> ram_save_target_page_multifd().
>> 3) Postcopy will always go with the ram_save_target_page_legacy() path.
>> 4) Legacy compression will always go with the
>> ram_save_target_page_legacy() path.
>> 5) Call ram_save_target_page_legacy() from within
>> ram_save_target_page_multifd() if postcopy or legacy compression.
>>
>
> Hi Fabiano,
> So I spent some time reading the
> ram_save_target_page_legacy/ram_save_target_page_multifd code path
> Juan wrote and here is my current understanding:
> 1) Multifd and legacy compression are not compatible.
> 2) Multifd and postcopy are not compatible.
> The compatibility checks are implemented in migrate_caps_check(). So
> there is really no need to handle a lot of the complexity in Juan's
> code.
>
> I think what we can do is:
> 1) If multifd is enabled, use ram_save_target_page_multifd().
> Otherwise, use ram_save_target_page_legacy().
> 2) In ram_save_target_page_legacy(), we don't need the special path to
> call ram_save_multifd_page(). That can be handled by
> ram_save_target_page_multifd() alone.
> 3) In ram_save_target_page_multifd(), we assert that legacy
> compression is not enabled. And we also assert that postcopy is also
> not enabled.
> 4) We do need backward compatibility support for the main zero page
> checking case in multifd. So in ram_save_target_page_multifd(), we
> call save_zero_page() if migrate_multifd_zero_page() is false.
>

Sounds good. Could you apply those changes and the capability we
discussed in the other message and send a separate series?  I haven't
found the time to work on this yet.