* Daniel P. Berrangé (berra...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 10:36:11AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 03:20:14PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 01:15:18PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > > > Since the introduction of multifd, it's possible to perform a multifd > > > > migration and finish it using postcopy. > > > > > > > > A bug introduced by yank (fixed on cfc3bcf373) was previously preventing > > > > a successful use of this migration scenario, and now it should be > > > > working on most cases. > > > > > > > > But since there is not enough testing/support nor any reported users for > > > > this scenario, we should disable this combination before it may cause > > > > any > > > > problems for users. > > > > > > Clearly we don't have enough testing, but multifd+postcopy looks > > > like a clearly useful scenario that we should be supporting. > > > > > > Every post-copy starts with at least one pre-copy iteration, and > > > using multifd for that will be important for big VMs where single > > > threaded pre-copy is going to be CPU bound. The greater amount we > > > can transfer in the pre-copy phase, the less page faults / latency > > > spikes postcopy is going to see. > > > > If we're using 1-round precopy + postcopy approach, the amount of memory > > will be the same which is the guest mem size. > > > > Multifd will make the round shorter so more chance of getting less > > re-dirtied pages during the iteration, but that effect is limited. E.g.: > > > > - For a very idle guest, finishing 1st round in 1min or 3min may not > > bring a large difference because most of the pages will be constant > > anyway, or > > > > - For a very busy guest, probably similar amount of pages will be dirtied > > no matter in 1min / 3min. Multifd will bring a benefit here, but > > busier the guest smaller the effect. > > I don't feel like that follows. If we're bottlenecking mostly on CPU > but have sufficient network bandwidth, then multifd can be the difference > between needing to switch to post-copy or being successful in converging > in pre-copy. > > IOW, without multifd we can expect 90% of guests will get stuck and need > a switch to post-copy, but with multifd 90% of the guest will complete > while in precopy mode and only 10% need switch to post-copy. That's good > because it means most guests will avoid the increased failure risk and > the period of increased page fault latency from post-copy.
Agreed, although I think Peter's point was that in the cases where you know the guests are crazy busy and you're always going to need postcopy, it's a bit less of an issue. (But still, getting multiple fd's in the postcopy phase is good to reduce latency). Dave > > > > In terms of migration usage, my personal recommendation to mgmt > > > apps would be that they should always enable the post-copy feature > > > when starting a migration. Even if they expect to try to get it to > > > complete using exclusively pre-copy in the common case, its useful > > > to have post-copy capability flag enabled, as a get out of jail > > > free card. ie if migration ends up getting stuck in non-convergance, > > > or they have a sudden need to urgently complete the migration it is > > > good to be able to flip to post-copy mode. > > > > I fully agree. > > > > It should not need to be enabled only if not capable, e.g., the dest host > > may not have privilege to initiate the userfaultfd (since QEMU postcopy > > requires kernel fault traps, so it's very likely). > > Sure, the mgmt app (libvirt) should be checking support for userfaultfd > on both sides before permitting / trying to enable the feature. > > > > > I'd suggest that we instead add a multifd+postcopy test case to > > > migration-test.c and tackle any bugs it exposes. By blocking it > > > unconditionally we ensure no one will exercise it to expose any > > > further bugs. > > > > That's doable. But then we'd better also figure out how to identify the > > below two use cases of both features enabled: > > > > a. Enable multifd in precopy only, then switch to postcopy (currently > > mostly working but buggy; I think Juan can provide more information here, > > at least we need to rework multifd flush when switching, and test and > > test over to make sure there's nothing else missing). > > > > b. Enable multifd in both precopy and postcopy phase (currently > > definitely not supported) > > > > So that mgmt app will be aware whether multifd will be enabled in postcopy > > or not. Currently we can't identify it. > > > > I assume we can say by default "mutlifd+postcopy" means a) above, but we > > need to document it, and when b) is wanted and implemented someday, we'll > > need some other flag/cap for it. > > As I've mentioned a few times, I think we need to throw away the idea > of exposing capabilities that mgmt apps need to learn about, and make > the migration protocol fully bi-directional so src + dst QEMU can > directly negotiate features. Apps shouldn't have to care about the > day-to-day improvements in the migration impl to the extent that they > are today. > > 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 :| > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK