Date:   Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:59:30 -0700
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        "mgurtovoy@...dia.com" <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>,
        "yishaih@...dia.com" <yishaih@...dia.com>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        liulongfang <liulongfang@...wei.com>,
        "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
        "Wangzhou (B)" <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] vfio: Extend the device migration protocol
 with PRE_COPY

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 18:05:53 +0000
Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@...hat.com]
> > Sent: 03 March 2022 15:21
> > To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > Cc: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>;
> > kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org; linux-pci@...r.kernel.org; cohuck@...hat.com;
> > mgurtovoy@...dia.com; yishaih@...dia.com; Linuxarm
> > <linuxarm@...wei.com>; liulongfang <liulongfang@...wei.com>; Zengtao (B)
> > <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>; Jonathan Cameron
> > <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>; Wangzhou (B) <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] vfio: Extend the device migration protocol with
> > PRE_COPY
> > 
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 09:01:24 -0400
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:47:52PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:  
> > > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 20:05:28 -0400
> > > > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 01:31:59PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:  
> > > > > > > + * initial_bytes reflects the estimated remaining size of any
> > > > > > > + initial mandatory
> > > > > > > + * precopy data transfer. When initial_bytes returns as zero
> > > > > > > + then the initial
> > > > > > > + * phase of the precopy data is completed. Generally initial_bytes  
> > should start  
> > > > > > > + * out as approximately the entire device state.  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is "mandatory" intended to mean here?  The user isn't required  
> > to  
> > > > > > collect any data from the device in the PRE_COPY states.  
> > > > >
> > > > > If the data is split into initial,dirty,trailer then mandatory
> > > > > means that first chunk.  
> > > >
> > > > But there's no requirement to read anything in PRE_COPY, so initial
> > > > becomes indistinguishable from trailer and dirty doesn't exist.  
> > >
> > > It is still mandatory to read that data out, it doesn't matter if it
> > > is read during PRE_COPY or STOP_COPY.  
> > 
> > Not really, PRE_COPY -> RUNNING is a valid arc.
> >   
> > > > > > "The vfio_precopy_info data structure returned by this ioctl
> > > > > > provides  estimates of data available from the device during the  
> > PRE_COPY states.  
> > > > > >  This estimate is split into two categories, initial_bytes and
> > > > > > dirty_bytes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  The initial_bytes field indicates the amount of static data
> > > > > > available  from the device.  This field should have a non-zero initial  
> > value and  
> > > > > >  decrease as migration data is read from the device.  
> > > > >
> > > > > static isn't great either, how about just say 'minimum data available'  
> > > >
> > > > 'initial precopy data-set'?  
> > >
> > > Sure
> > >  
> > > > We have no basis to make that assertion.  We've agreed that precopy
> > > > can be used for nothing more than a compatibility test, so we could
> > > > have a vGPU with a massive framebuffer and no ability to provide
> > > > dirty tracking implement precopy only to include the entire
> > > > framebuffer in the trailing STOP_COPY data set.  Per my
> > > > understanding and the fact that we cannot enforce any heuristics
> > > > regarding the size of the tailer relative to the pre-copy data set,
> > > > I think the above strongly phrased sentence is necessary to
> > > > understand the limitations of what this ioctl is meant to convey.
> > > > Thanks,  
> > >
> > > This is why abusing precopy for compatability is not a great idea. It
> > > is OK for acc because its total state is tiny, but I would not agree
> > > to a vGPU driver being merged working like you describe. It distorts
> > > the entire purpose of PRE_COPY and this whole estimation mechanism.
> > >
> > > The ioctl is intended to convey when to switch to STOP_COPY, and the
> > > driver should provide a semantic where the closer the reported length
> > > is to 0 then the faster the STOP_COPY will go.  
> > 
> > If it's an abuse, then let's not do it.  It was never my impression or intention
> > that this was ok for acc only due to the minimal trailing data size.  My
> > statement was that use of PRE_COPY for compatibility testing only had been a
> > previously agreed valid use case of the original migration interface.
> > 
> > Furthermore the acc driver was explicitly directed not to indicate any degree
> > of trailing data size in dirty_bytes, so while trailing data may be small for acc,
> > this interface is explicitly not intended to provide any indication of trailing
> > data size.  Thanks,  
> 
> Just to clarify, so the suggestion here is not to use PRE_COPY for compatibility
> check at all and have a different proper infrastructure for that later as Jason
> suggested?
> 
> If so, I will remove this patch from this series and go back to the old revision
> where we only have STOP_COPY and do the compatibility check during the final
> load data operation.

Hi Shameer,

I think NVIDIA has a company long weekend, so I'm not sure how quickly
we'll hear a rebuttal from Jason, but at this point I'd rather not move
forward with using PRE_COPY exclusively for compatibility testing if
that is seen as an abuse of the interface, regardless of the size of
the remaining STOP_COPY data.  It might be most expedient to respin
without PRE_COPY and we'll revisit methods to perform early
compatibility testing in the future.  Thanks,

Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists