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

On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 11:31:13AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > What I worry more is whether this is really what we want to keep rdma in > qemu, and that's also why I was trying to request for some serious > performance measurements comparing rdma v.s. nics. And here when I said > "we" I mean both QEMU community and any company that will support keeping > rdma around. > > The problem is if NICs now are fast enough to perform at least equally > against rdma, and if it has a lower cost of overall maintenance, does it > mean that rdma migration will only be used by whoever wants to keep them in > the products and existed already? In that case we should simply ask new > users to stick with tcp, and rdma users should only drop but not increase. > > It seems also destined that most new migration features will not support > rdma: see how much we drop old features in migration now (which rdma > _might_ still leverage, but maybe not), and how much we add mostly multifd > relevant which will probably not apply to rdma at all. So in general what > I am worrying is a both-loss condition, if the company might be easier to > either stick with an old qemu (depending on whether other new features are > requested to be used besides RDMA alone), or do periodic rebase with RDMA > downstream only. I don't know much about the originals of RDMA support in QEMU and why this particular design was taken. It is indeed a huge maint burden to have a completely different code flow for RDMA with 4000+ lines of custom protocol signalling which is barely understandable. I would note that /usr/include/rdma/rsocket.h provides a higher level API that is a 1-1 match of the normal kernel 'sockets' API. If we had leveraged that, then QIOChannelSocket class and the QAPI SocketAddress type could almost[1] trivially have supported RDMA. There would have been almost no RDMA code required in the migration subsystem, and all the modern features like compression, multifd, post-copy, etc would "just work". I guess the 'rsocket.h' shim may well limit some of the possible performance gains, but it might still have been a better tradeoff to have not quite so good peak performance, but with massively less maint burden.

With regards, Daniel [1] "almost" trivially, because the poll() integration for rsockets requires a bit more magic sauce since rsockets FDs are not really FDs from the kernel's POV. Still, QIOCHannel likely can abstract that probme. -- |: 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 :|