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 4C618C4828C for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 13:23:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rVX2O-0006Px-Df; Thu, 01 Feb 2024 08:23:28 -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 1rVX2L-0006Pa-UT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Feb 2024 08:23:25 -0500 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.223.130]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rVX2H-0005HO-Rn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Feb 2024 08:23:24 -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 AEB7D22147; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 13:23:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1706793799; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=F9SSVDW8uYIbqv1wY3ghNR+a4Of8ubLQedhlEsTqzw4=; b=sBVwBPAqwAc/IgourOyZIkoBn2ZhAtOIvT1JzMvCNFYDQS7VvI2OzgR6JMsFwh1qU1vqXN OcN6lVcakSGDfqtWWpTA5IedrEgAcz7IP8HMrxtsSi5NkuUMGorhqKHtTAHMEBG0290DB3 GrdhJwN6ZC0Tyg+9qqnaP3GzwCMf6sw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1706793799; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=F9SSVDW8uYIbqv1wY3ghNR+a4Of8ubLQedhlEsTqzw4=; b=4S5B6I8cjVgFiNOUe/R4x1zUkgJfLJsPFqABGCU/O9VCOK/URIhsiSKfjWaJmQF2hiK9he 29WCARA0GBHCXJBQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1706793799; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=F9SSVDW8uYIbqv1wY3ghNR+a4Of8ubLQedhlEsTqzw4=; b=sBVwBPAqwAc/IgourOyZIkoBn2ZhAtOIvT1JzMvCNFYDQS7VvI2OzgR6JMsFwh1qU1vqXN OcN6lVcakSGDfqtWWpTA5IedrEgAcz7IP8HMrxtsSi5NkuUMGorhqKHtTAHMEBG0290DB3 GrdhJwN6ZC0Tyg+9qqnaP3GzwCMf6sw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1706793799; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=F9SSVDW8uYIbqv1wY3ghNR+a4Of8ubLQedhlEsTqzw4=; b=4S5B6I8cjVgFiNOUe/R4x1zUkgJfLJsPFqABGCU/O9VCOK/URIhsiSKfjWaJmQF2hiK9he 29WCARA0GBHCXJBQ== 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 36C6D139AB; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 13:23:19 +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 fUE5AEebu2UlRAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 01 Feb 2024 13:23:19 +0000 From: Fabiano Rosas To: Hao Xiang Cc: Peter Xu , "Liu, Yuan1" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Bryan Zhang Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 0/5] migration/multifd: Prerequisite cleanups for ongoing work In-Reply-To: References: <20240126221943.26628-1-farosas@suse.de> <87jznse211.fsf@suse.de> <8734udljwz.fsf@suse.de> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 10:23:16 -0300 Message-ID: <87v878iaij.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=sBVwBPAq; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=4S5B6I8c X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.51 / 50.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.de:+]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.de:dkim,suse.de:email]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AEB7D22147 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=195.135.223.130; 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 Hao Xiang writes: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 5:19=E2=80=AFAM Fabiano Rosas w= rote: >> >> Peter Xu writes: >> >> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:51:06AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> >> Peter Xu writes: >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 01:41:01AM +0000, Liu, Yuan1 wrote: >> >> >> Because this change has an impact on the previous live migration >> >> >> With IAA Patch, does the submission of the next version needs >> >> >> to be submitted based on this change? >> >> > >> >> > I'd say hold off a little while until we're more certain on the pla= nned >> >> > interface changes, to avoid you rebase your code back and forth; un= less >> >> > you're pretty confident that this will be the right approach. >> >> > >> >> > I apologize on not having looked at any of the QAT/IAA compression = / zero >> >> > detection series posted on the list; I do plan to read them very so= on too >> >> > after Fabiano. So I may not have a complete full picture here yet,= please >> >> > bare with me. >> >> > >> >> > If this series is trying to provide a base ground for all the effor= ts, >> >> > it'll be great if we can thoroughly discuss here and settle an appr= oach >> >> > soon that will satisfy everyone. >> >> >> >> Just a summary if it helps: >> >> >> >> For compression work (IAA/QPL, QAT) the discussion is around having a >> >> new "compression acceleration" option that enables the accelerators a= nd >> >> is complementary to the existing zlib compression method. We'd choose >> >> those automatically based on availability and we'd make HW accelerated >> >> compression produce a stream that is compatible with QEMU's zlib stre= am >> >> so we could migrate between solutions. >> >> >> >> For zero page work and zero page acceleration (DSA), the question is = how >> >> to fit zero page detection into multifd and whether we need a new hook >> >> multifd_ops->zero_page_detect() (or similar) to allow client code to >> >> provide it's own zero page detection methods. My worry here is that >> >> teaching multifd to recognize zero pages is one more coupling to the >> >> "pages" data type. Ideallly we'd find a way to include that operation= as >> >> a prepare() responsibility and the client code would deal with it. >> > >> > Thanks Fabiano. > > Hi Fabiano, > > Your current refactoring assumes that compression ops and multifd > socket ops are mutually exclusive. Both of them need to implement the > entire MultiFDMethods interface. I think this works fine for now. Once > we introduce multifd zero page checking and we add a new interface for > that, we are adding a new method zero_page_detect() on the > MultiFDMethods interface. If we do that, zero_page_detect() needs to > be implemented in multifd_socket_ops and it also needs to be > implemented in zlib and zstd. On top of that, if we add an accelerator > to offload zero_page_detect(), that accelerator configuration can > co-exist with compression or socket. That makes things quite > complicated in my opinion. Peter has proposed an alternate scheme. Take a look at his series. But it basically keeps the compression as is and moves some code into the prepare() phase: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240131103111.306523-1-peterx@redhat.com > Can we create an instance of MultiFDMethods at runtime and fill each > method depending on the configuration? If methods are not filled, we > fallback to fill it with the default implementation (like what > socket.c provides) For instance, if zstd is enabled and zero page > checking using CPU, the interface will be filled with all the > functions zstd currently implements and since zstd doesn't implement > zero_page_detect(), we will fallback to fill zero_page_detect() with > the default multifd zero page checking implementation. Take a look whether incorporating zero_page_detect() in the prepare() phase would work. We're trying to walk toward a multifd_ops model that is not tied to the pages concept. >> > >> > Since I'm preparing the old series to post for some fundamental cleanu= ps >> > around multifd, and when I'm looking around the code, I noticed that >> > _maybe_ it'll also be eaiser to apply such a series if we can cleanup = more >> > things then move towards a clean base to add more accelerators. >> > >> > I agree many ideas in your this series, but I may address it slightly >> > different (e.g., I want to avoid send(), but you can consider that in = the >> > fixed-ram series instead), also it'll be after some other cleanup I pl= an to >> > give a stab at which is not yet covered in this series. I hope I can = add >> > your "Co-developed-by" in some of the patches there. If you haven't s= pend >> > more time on new version of this series, please wait 1-2 days so I can= post >> > my thoughts. >> >> Sure, go ahead. >>