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 0977DC4332F for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2023 18:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qyFjk-0007F4-Io; Wed, 01 Nov 2023 14:14:40 -0400 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 1qyFji-0007Ec-DF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Nov 2023 14:14:38 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([2001:67c:2178:6::1c]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qyFjg-0002r1-Ot for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Nov 2023 14:14:38 -0400 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 385BB21850; Wed, 1 Nov 2023 18:14:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1698862475; 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=kvycZSImFG44hzrOzYRIctNFtPAQEvLG8sGfLh3lPlE=; b=T+qaPMQAiyTPKcmBiykka2Vm0Cu1ebuMRVkMcCenG0P49R1Ax2TCI+SwMXoBB3twYuReQ6 v/XCykfAcCUNkTc+QPwzh2+3dBar5KGHzN1OTNGSA6FX0SZ21u6u8+21+KIb99kAA944bf TWuW6tJHcTORX7mmutOGvmqX4IJqPWA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1698862475; 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=kvycZSImFG44hzrOzYRIctNFtPAQEvLG8sGfLh3lPlE=; b=std3L6tNwpFfnwScomSK0KLa03nIK6eTox12Y/ksixDqWv5kokZOn8LILSA3mHlxJR0hfM gx8OFBvrGbN/LtBA== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE1A613460; Wed, 1 Nov 2023 18:14:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id zuotIoqVQmWybwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 01 Nov 2023 18:14:34 +0000 From: Fabiano Rosas To: Peter Xu Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, berrange@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, Juan Quintela , Leonardo Bras , Claudio Fontana Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 21/29] migration/multifd: Add pages to the receiving side In-Reply-To: References: <20231023203608.26370-1-farosas@suse.de> <20231023203608.26370-22-farosas@suse.de> <87il6mcrf5.fsf@suse.de> <87msvxfl0f.fsf@suse.de> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2023 15:14:32 -0300 Message-ID: <87il6lfiif.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2001:67c:2178:6::1c; 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 Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 02:20:32PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> I wonder if adapting multifd to use a QIOTask for the channels would >> make sense as an intermediary step. Seems simpler and would force us to >> format multifd in more generic terms. > > Isn't QIOTask event based, too? > > From my previous experience, making it not gcontext based, if we already > have threads, are easier. But maybe I didn't really get what you meant. Sorry, I wasn't thinking about the context aspect. I agree it's easier without it. I was talking about having standardized dispatch and completion code for multifd without being a whole thread pool. So just something that takes a function and a pointer to data, runs that in a thread with some locking and returns in a sane way. Every thread we create in the migration code has a different mechanism to return after an error and a different way to do cleanup. The QIOTask seemed to fit that at a high level. I would be happy with just the return + cleanup part really. We've been doing work around those areas for a while. If we could reuse generic code for that it would be nice.