Re: [PATCH-for-9.1 v2 2/3] migration: Remove RDMA protocol handling

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Peter Xu (peterx@redhat.com) wrote:
> Hey, Dave!

Hey!

> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 12:31:56AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Michael Galaxy (mgalaxy@akamai.com) wrote:
> > > One thing to keep in mind here (despite me not having any hardware to 
> > > test)
> > > was that one of the original goals here
> > > in the RDMA implementation was not simply raw throughput nor raw latency,
> > > but a lack of CPU utilization in kernel
> > > space due to the offload. While it is entirely possible that newer 
> > > hardware
> > > w/ TCP might compete, the significant
> > > reductions in CPU usage in the TCP/IP stack were a big win at the time.
> > > 
> > > Just something to consider while you're doing the testing........
> > 
> > I just noticed this thread; some random notes from a somewhat
> > fragmented memory of this:
> > 
> >   a) Long long ago, I also tried rsocket; 
> >       https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-01/msg02040.html
> >      as I remember the library was quite flaky at the time.
> 
> Hmm interesting.  There also looks like a thread doing rpoll().

Yeh, I can't actually remember much more about what I did back then!

> Btw, not sure whether you noticed, but there's the series posted for the
> latest rsocket conversion here:
> 
> 1717503252-51884-1-git-send-email-arei.gonglei@huawei.com">https://lore.kernel.org/r/1717503252-51884-1-git-send-email-arei.gonglei@huawei.com

Oh I hadn't; I think all of the stack of qemu's file abstractions had
changed in the ~10 years since I wrote my version!

> I hope Lei and his team has tested >4G mem, otherwise definitely worth
> checking.  Lei also mentioned there're rsocket bugs they found in the cover
> letter, but not sure what's that about.

It would probably be a good idea to keep track of what bugs
are in flight with it, and try it on a few RDMA cards to see
what problems get triggered.
I think I reported a few at the time, but I gave up after
feeling it was getting very hacky.

> Yes, and zero-copy requires multifd for now. I think it's because we didn't
> want to complicate the header processings in the migration stream where it
> may not be page aligned.

Ah yes.

> > 
> >   e) Someone made a good suggestion (sorry can't remember who) - that the
> >      RDMA migration structure was the wrong way around - it should be the
> >      destination which initiates an RDMA read, rather than the source
> >      doing a write; then things might become a LOT simpler; you just need
> >      to send page ranges to the destination and it can pull it.
> >      That might work nicely for postcopy.
> 
> I'm not sure whether it'll still be a problem if rdma recv side is based on
> zero-copy.  It would be a matter of whether atomicity can be guaranteed so
> that we don't want the guest vcpus to see a partially copied page during
> on-flight DMAs.  UFFDIO_COPY (or friend) is currently the only solution for
> that.

Yes, but even ignoring that (and the UFFDIO_CONTINUE idea you mention), if
the destination can issue an RDMA read itself, it doesn't need to send messages
to the source to ask for a page fetch; it just goes and grabs it itself,
that's got to be good for latency.

Dave

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Peter Xu
> 
-- 
 -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------   
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert    |       Running GNU/Linux       | Happy  \ 
\        dave @ treblig.org |                               | In Hex /
 \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org   |_______/