Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] migration: Add fd to FileMigrationArgs

[Fabiano Rosas]

Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes:

> [I queued patch 1-2 into -stable, leaving this patch for further
>  discussions]
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 08:55:42AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> The 'file:' protocol eventually calls into qemu_open, and this
>> transparently allows for FD passing using /dev/fdset/NNN syntax
>> to pass in FDs. 
>
> If it always use /dev/fdsets for files, does it mean that the newly added
> SOCKET_ADDRESS_TYPE_FD support on mapped-ram will never be used (so we can
> drop them)?

We already have SOCKET_ADDRESS_TYPE_FD + file since 8.2 when the
MigrationAddress was added. So this:

'channels': [ { 'channel-type': 'main',
                'addr': { 'transport': 'socket',
                'type': 'fd',
                'str': 'fdname' } } ]

works without multifd and without mapped-ram if the fd is a file or
socket.

So yes, you're correct, but given we already have this^ it would be
perhaps more confusing for users to allow it, but not allow the very
same JSON when multifd=true, mapped-ram=true.

That's the only reason I didn't propose reverting commit decdc76772
("migration/multifd: Add mapped-ram support to fd: URI").

For mapped-ram in libvirt, we'll definitely not use
SOCKET_ADDRESS_TYPE_FD (as in the JSON), because I don't think libvirt
supports the new API.

As for SOCKET_ADDRESS_TYPE_FD as in "fd:", we could use it when
direct-io is disabled. With direct-io, the fdset will be required.

>
> What about the old getfd?  Is it obsolete because it relies on monitor
> object?  Or maybe it's still in use?
>
> It would be greatly helpful if there can be a summary of how libvirt uses
> fd for migration purpose.
>
> Thanks,