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 85072C54798 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rdWd7-0008Qy-2G; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:34:25 -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 1rdWRP-0003vH-NY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:22:19 -0500 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.223.131]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rdWRO-0007QD-0H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:22:19 -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-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5586D1F79C; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:22:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1708698136; 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=rFl5yzktf5HUlYVWtBAvteQR2gUC7/3MKNZiD55SCT0=; b=MPLEppLB5fLUvuK6TRmhrnBD6thQ4J5FZ2EwTuH2LhwnoToSj5HMxW7iXr0urWep9KjE1A FsWTx9R3za8ePAWtvFpIcc/CTzxuv3qZpxABG5oakc18KnHUZHjt7l88Y9vQ8Cfmx75ig2 u2OyE2dh5pFmPSVR0qXlc5BiWaXsUDk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1708698136; 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=rFl5yzktf5HUlYVWtBAvteQR2gUC7/3MKNZiD55SCT0=; b=SLZC3MEpAvYBZarFKqNONoOFJ59w7yOhuQW4HdDSU6NBYqCMpaP82kPCjixvrBzq16RvMe 8aLGc+qbAHkDU3Dw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1708698136; 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=rFl5yzktf5HUlYVWtBAvteQR2gUC7/3MKNZiD55SCT0=; b=MPLEppLB5fLUvuK6TRmhrnBD6thQ4J5FZ2EwTuH2LhwnoToSj5HMxW7iXr0urWep9KjE1A FsWTx9R3za8ePAWtvFpIcc/CTzxuv3qZpxABG5oakc18KnHUZHjt7l88Y9vQ8Cfmx75ig2 u2OyE2dh5pFmPSVR0qXlc5BiWaXsUDk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1708698136; 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=rFl5yzktf5HUlYVWtBAvteQR2gUC7/3MKNZiD55SCT0=; b=SLZC3MEpAvYBZarFKqNONoOFJ59w7yOhuQW4HdDSU6NBYqCMpaP82kPCjixvrBzq16RvMe 8aLGc+qbAHkDU3Dw== 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 D0026133DC; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:22:15 +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 E4OTJReq2GWLEgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:22:15 +0000 From: Fabiano Rosas To: Peter Xu Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, berrange@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, Claudio Fontana Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/34] migration: File based migration with multifd and fixed-ram In-Reply-To: References: <20240220224138.24759-1-farosas@suse.de> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:22:12 -0300 Message-ID: <87a5nr9s6j.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.46 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-1.16)[88.81%]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; 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=195.135.223.131; envelope-from=farosas@suse.de; helo=smtp-out2.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 Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 07:41:04PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> Latest numbers >> ============== >> >> => guest: 128 GB RAM - 120 GB dirty - 1 vcpu in tight loop dirtying memory >> => host: 128 CPU AMD EPYC 7543 - 2 NVMe disks in RAID0 (8586 MiB/s) - xfs >> => pinned vcpus w/ NUMA shortest distances - average of 3 runs - results >> from query-migrate >> >> non-live | time (ms) pages/s mb/s MB/s >> -------------------+----------------------------------- >> file | 110512 256258 9549 1193 >> + bg-snapshot | 245660 119581 4303 537 > > Is this the one using userfault? I'm surprised it's much slower when > enabled; logically for a non-live snapshot it should take similar loops > like a normal migration as it should have zero faults, then it should be > similar performance. I just enabled the background-snapshot capability. Is there extra setup that must be done to enable this properly? The ufd_version_check from migration-test returns true on this system. >> -------------------+----------------------------------- >> fixed-ram | 157975 216877 6672 834 >> + multifd 8 ch. | 95922 292178 10982 1372 >> + direct-io | 23268 1936897 45330 5666 >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> live | time (ms) pages/s mb/s MB/s >> -------------------+----------------------------------- >> file | - - - - (file grew 4x the VM size) >> + bg-snapshot | 357635 141747 2974 371 >> -------------------+----------------------------------- >> fixed-ram | - - - - (no convergence in 5 min) >> + multifd 8 ch. | 230812 497551 14900 1862 >> + direct-io | 27475 1788025 46736 5842 >> ------------------------------------------------------- > > Also surprised on direct-io too.. that is definitely something tremendous. Indeed. That was the intention with this series all along after all.