On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 02:48:48PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 06:20:28PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > >> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 05:21:48PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > >> >> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: > >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 02:59:05PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > >> >> >> Hi, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> In this v2 I took Peter's suggestion of keeping the channels' > >> >> >> pointers > >> >> >> and moving only the extra slot. The major changes are in patches 5 > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> 9. Patch 3 introduces the structure: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> typedef enum { > >> >> >> MULTIFD_PAYLOAD_NONE, > >> >> >> MULTIFD_PAYLOAD_RAM, > >> >> >> } MultiFDPayloadType; > >> >> >> > >> >> >> struct MultiFDSendData { > >> >> >> MultiFDPayloadType type; > >> >> >> union { > >> >> >> MultiFDPages_t ram; > >> >> >> } u; > >> >> >> }; > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I added a NONE type so we can use it to tell when the channel has > >> >> >> finished sending a packet, since we'll need to switch types between > >> >> >> clients anyway. This avoids having to introduce a 'size', or 'free' > >> >> >> variable. > >> >> > > >> >> > This at least looks better to me, thanks. > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> WHAT'S MISSING: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> - The support for calling multifd_send() concurrently. Maciej has > >> >> >> this > >> >> >> in his series so I didn't touch it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> - A way of adding methods for the new payload type. Currently, the > >> >> >> compression methods are somewhat coupled with ram migration, so I'm > >> >> >> not sure how to proceed. > >> >> > > >> >> > What is this one? Why compression methods need new payload? Aren't > >> >> > they > >> >> > ram-typed? > >> >> > >> >> The data we transport is MultiFDPages_t, yes, but the MultiFDMethods are > >> >> either nocomp, or the compression-specific methods > >> >> (e.g. zlib_send_prepare). > >> >> > >> >> How do we add methods for the upcoming new payload types? I don't expect > >> >> us to continue using nocomp and then do "if (ram)... else if > >> >> (device_state) ..." inside of them. I would expect us to rename > >> >> s/nocomp/ram/ and add a new set of MultiFDMethods for the new data type > >> >> (e.g. vfio_send_prepare, vmstate_send_prepare, etc). > >> >> > >> >> multifd_nocomp_ops -> multifd_ram_ops // rename > >> >> multifd_zlib_ops // existing > >> >> multifd_device_ops // new > >> >> > >> >> The challenge here is that the current framework is nocomp > >> >> vs. compression. It needs to become ram + compression vs. other types. > >> > > >> > IMHO we can keep multifd_ops[] only for RAM. There's only send_prepare() > >> > that device state will need, and so far it's only (referring Maciej's > >> > code): > >> > > >> > static int nocomp_send_prepare_device_state(MultiFDSendParams *p, > >> > Error **errp) > >> > { > >> > multifd_send_prepare_header_device_state(p); > >> > > >> > assert(!(p->flags & MULTIFD_FLAG_SYNC)); > >> > > >> > p->next_packet_size = p->device_state->buf_len; > >> > if (p->next_packet_size > 0) { > >> > p->iov[p->iovs_num].iov_base = p->device_state->buf; > >> > p->iov[p->iovs_num].iov_len = p->next_packet_size; > >> > p->iovs_num++; > >> > } > >> > > >> > p->flags |= MULTIFD_FLAG_NOCOMP | MULTIFD_FLAG_DEVICE_STATE; > >> > > >> > multifd_send_fill_packet_device_state(p); > >> > > >> > return 0; > >> > } > >> > > >> > None of other multifd_ops are used. > >> > >> There's also a conditional around device_state when calling > >> ->recv(). That could seems like it could go to a hook. > >> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/41dedaf2c9abebb5e45f88c052daa26320715a92.1718717584.git.maciej.szmigi...@oracle.com > > > > Actually that's exactly what I think is right.. it looks to me now that we > > could bypass anything in MultifdOps (including recv()) but let device state > > be a parallel layer of MultifdOps itself, leaving MultifdOps only for > > compressors. > > > > And yeah, I still remember you just renamed it from recv_pages() to > > recv().. it's just that now when think it again it looks like cleaner to > > make it only about pages.. > > > >> > >> > > >> > I think we can directly invoke this part of device state code in > >> > multifd_send_thread() for now. So far I think it should be ok. > >> > >> It's not just that. There's also a check for "if (ram)" at every call to > >> multifd_ops to avoid calling the ram code when doing the device > >> migration. It would be way easier to just set noop functions for those. > >> > >> static MultiFDMethods multifd_devstate_ops = { > >> .send_setup = noop_send_setup, > >> .send_cleanup = noop_send_cleanup, > >> .send_prepare = devstate_send_prepare, > >> .recv_setup = noop_recv_setup, > >> .recv_cleanup = noop_recv_cleanup, > >> .recv = devstate_recv > >> }; > >> > >> I'm not saying this needs to be done in this series though. But I do > >> think that's the correct design choice for the long term. > > > > Yes it should be separate. > > > > And what I meant is we don't need all these noops, but recv() keeps being > > ignored just like above, then for sender side, right now it's: > > > > ret = multifd_send_state->ops->send_prepare(p, &local_err); > > if (migrate_mapped_ram()) { > > file_write_ramblock_iov(); > > } else { > > ret = qio_channel_writev_full_all(); > > } > > > > VFIO can process device state in parallel, so: > > > > if (ram) { > > ret = multifd_send_state->ops->send_prepare(p, &local_err); > > if (migrate_mapped_ram()) { > > file_write_ramblock_iov(); > > } else { > > qio_channel_writev_full_all(); > > } > > } else { > > // device state handling > > multifd_send_device_prepare(...); > > ... > > qio_channel_writev_full_all(); > > } > > > > Then MultifdOps doesn't apply to device states. > > To avoid getting into bikeshed territory, I think we should postpone > this discussion until after Maciej's series is merged, so we can speak > more concretely about the implications. It's easy enough to go from your > suggestion to mine than the other way around, so let's leave at that. > > I had it already written, so more of my reasoning below, if you're > interested.
I never thought this is bikeshedding.. What we're discussing now is exactly what should appear in Maciej's code, am I right? I thought we should figure it out before it's merged, if that's the case.. And whose suggestion isn't that important, IMO. We simply try to discuss this technically and reach a consensus.. no matter who proposed what. > ====== > > We already have the send/recv threads structured in relation to what we > do inside the hooks. You're just defining a function that's not a hook, > but it has the same signature and responsibilities and needs to be > called at the same moment. > > I think the dissonance here is that you don't see the multifd thread > code and the payloads (ram, device) as separate layers. Payload-specific > code should not be at top level. Otherwise, it breaks any semblance of > proper layering: > > - payload code will have access to MultiFD*Params, which has a bunch of > control variables for the loop, the semaphores, etc. that should not > be touched; > > - payload code ends up influencing the flow of the thread > function. E.g. when zero_copy_send used to dictate whether we'd have > separate IO for the packet or not. > > - temporary variables needed by the payload code will have to be > declared inside the thread funcion, which makes tempting to use them > across payload types and also in the thread code itself; > > - it creates doubt as to whether new changes go inside the hooks, in the > if/else or outside of it; > > Think about how easy it has has been to review and merge the various > compression features we had. It doesn't matter how much they mess up > inside the hooks, it will never cause the dreaded "Memory content > inconsistency at ..." error from check_guest_ram(). At least not in a > way that affects other people. Now compare that with for instance the > zero-page work, or even mapped-ram, that required a bunch of changes to > the multifd control flow itself (e.g. all of the sync changes w/ > mapped-ram). I think there's one issue where we only support one MultiFDMethods as of now to be active, while the "clients" of multifd can be >1 from payload POV. It means I'm not sure how VFIO can provide a MultiFDMethods if it will overwrite what should be there to define how to process RAM.. Then, we should logically allow VFIO migration to happen with RAM being compressed with ZSTD/ZLIB/whatever, right? The question is which MultiFDMethods we should assign if they're the same layer in this case.. -- Peter Xu