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 95047C4332F for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:27:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxPYS-0006ne-3B; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 04:27:00 -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 1oxPYP-0006nJ-Ps for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 04:26:57 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxPYO-00007M-3g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 04:26:57 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1669109214; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject: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=5k8NwmDQPr/QBO7guK43+iPn1Tt6YESDXQ1aULjsQLE=; b=Br7d6uw5e1UGvKgJROFXMFW/jBv6E5qRzSZB+jnhmJwXb1eeXKXJM3ON6s+iaGtrNXwUmK ky5QTfY0tQhMiaxBoBMfH0RgVCZskPMoLvqqFwwMtDLb6WaQXtPSN2DQ42UUr4VaWQLm8T vq4taidwmdEtjgLZp7KKeSP4qc48r2c= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-335-2WbCuS9rOU2A8Mb8Ok7fBQ-1; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 04:26:53 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 2WbCuS9rOU2A8Mb8Ok7fBQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 249F985A588; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:26:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.33.36.80]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 522B740C6E16; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:26:47 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Juan Quintela Cc: Markus Armbruster , Het Gala , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, eblake@redhat.com, prerna.saxena@nutanix.com, Manish Mishra Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] multifd: modifying 'migrate' qmp command to add multifd socket on particular src and dest pair Message-ID: References: <20220721195620.123837-1-het.gala@nutanix.com> <20220721195620.123837-3-het.gala@nutanix.com> <87sfmf84iy.fsf@pond.sub.org> <87r0xwtrw0.fsf@secure.mitica> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r0xwtrw0.fsf@secure.mitica> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.7 (2022-08-07) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.2 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com 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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 01:26:55PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote: > Markus Armbruster wrote: > > Het Gala writes: > > > > Hi > > >>>> # Example: > >>>> # > >>>> -# -> { "execute": "migrate", "arguments": { "uri": "tcp:0:4446" } } > >>>> +# -> { "execute": "migrate", > >>>> +# "arguments": { > >>>> +# "uri": "tcp:0:4446", > >>>> +# "multi-fd-uri-list": [ { "source-uri": "tcp::6900", > >>>> +# "destination-uri": "tcp:0:4480", > >>>> +# "multifd-channels": 4}, > >>>> +# { "source-uri": "tcp:10.0.0.0: ", > >>>> +# "destination-uri": "tcp:11.0.0.0:7789", > >>>> +# "multifd-channels": 5} ] } } > > Why would one put the source uri and destination uri on the command? > It looks more complicated to me, but I guess there is a good reason. > > >>> > >>> This whole scheme brings in redundancy wrt to the 'migrate-set-parameters' > >>> API wrt multifd - essentally the same data is now being set in two > >>> different places. IMHO, we should declare the 'multifd' capability > >>> and the 'multifd-chanels' parameter deprecated, since the information > >>> they provide is totally redundant, if you're giving an explicit list > >>> of channels to 'migrate'. > >> > >> Hi Daniel. Initially while brainstorming this idea for the first > >> time, we also came up with the same thought of depricating the > >> migrate > >> API. But how will we achieve this now and how is it going to > >> work. Is it like we will be making migate V2 APIs initially, > >> integrate it and then > >> depricate the old one? would be happy to get some pointers from your end. > > > > Migration maintainers, please advise. > > I would put the old one in top of the new one, and call it a day. > I really hate the old one, but I haven't had the time to think about a > better one (nor I have had the time to look into this one). > > The problem that I am seing here is that we are adding the number of > multifd channels here, and we were trying to not add migration > parameters into the migrate command. The issue of migration parameters is a much bigger one - a lot of them should never have existed, if QEMU had a proper migration wire protocol that could do feature negotiation. We need to replace the wire protocol as the priority, at which point the QMP side becomes simpler as a result. Starting with the QMP side, without addressing the wire protocol first will never give us a good long term result. I've written more about that in my reply to Het's other patch. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|