Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 04:12:40PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > Migration bandwidth is a very important value to live migration. It's
>> > because it's one of the major factors that we'll make decision on when to
>> > switchover to destination in a precopy process.
>> >
>> > This value is currently estimated by QEMU during the whole live migration
>> > process by monitoring how fast we were sending the data. This can be the
>> > most accurate bandwidth if in the ideal world, where we're always feeding
>> > unlimited data to the migration channel, and then it'll be limited to the
>> > bandwidth that is available.
>> >
>> > However in reality it may be very different, e.g., over a 10Gbps network we
>> > can see query-migrate showing migration bandwidth of only a few tens of
>> > MB/s just because there are plenty of other things the migration thread
>> > might be doing. For example, the migration thread can be busy scanning
>> > zero pages, or it can be fetching dirty bitmap from other external dirty
>> > sources (like vhost or KVM). It means we may not be pushing data as much
>> > as possible to migration channel, so the bandwidth estimated from "how many
>> > data we sent in the channel" can be dramatically inaccurate sometimes.
>>
>> how much data we've sent to the channel
>>
>> >
>> > With that, the decision to switchover will be affected, by assuming that we
>> > may not be able to switchover at all with such a low bandwidth, but in
>> > reality we can.
>> >
>> > The migration may not even converge at all with the downtime specified,
>> > with that wrong estimation of bandwidth, keeping iterations forever with a
>>
>> iterating forever
>>
>> > low estimation of bandwidth.
>> >
>> > The issue is QEMU itself may not be able to avoid those uncertainties on
>> > measuing the real "available migration bandwidth". At least not something
>> > I can think of so far.
>> >
>> > One way to fix this is when the user is fully aware of the available
>> > bandwidth, then we can allow the user to help providing an accurate value.
>> >
>> > For example, if the user has a dedicated channel of 10Gbps for migration
>> > for this specific VM, the user can specify this bandwidth so QEMU can
>> > always do the calculation based on this fact, trusting the user as long as
>> > specified. It may not be the exact bandwidth when switching over (in which
>> > case qemu will push migration data as fast as possible), but much better
>> > than QEMU trying to wildly guess, especially when very wrong.
>> >
>> > A new parameter "avail-switchover-bandwidth" is introduced just for this.
>> > So when the user specified this parameter, instead of trusting the
>> > estimated value from QEMU itself (based on the QEMUFile send speed), it
>> > trusts the user more by using this value to decide when to switchover,
>> > assuming that we'll have such bandwidth available then.
>> >
>> > Note that specifying this value will not throttle the bandwidth for
>> > switchover yet, so QEMU will always use the full bandwidth possible for
>> > sending switchover data, assuming that should always be the most important
>> > way to use the network at that time.
>> >
>> > This can resolve issues like "unconvergence migration" which is caused by
>> > hilarious low "migration bandwidth" detected for whatever reason.
>>
>> "unconvergence" isn't a word :)
>>
>> Suggest "like migration not converging, because the automatically
>> detected migration bandwidth is hilariously low for whatever reason."
>>
>> Appreciate the thorough explanation!
>
> Thanks for reviewing!
>
> The patch is already in today's migration pull, so unfortunately no planned
> repost for now. I'll amend the commit message and collect the ACK if I'll
> need to redo it.
Didn't see the PR, and didn't expect it so soon.
>> > Reported-by: Zhiyi Guo <zh...@redhat.com>
>> > Reviewed-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> > v4:
>> > - Rebase to master, with duplicated documentations
>> > ---
>> > qapi/migration.json | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> > migration/migration.h | 2 +-
>> > migration/options.h | 1 +
>> > migration/migration-hmp-cmds.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> > migration/migration.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
>> > migration/options.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > migration/trace-events | 2 +-
>> > 7 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/qapi/migration.json b/qapi/migration.json
>> > index 8843e74b59..0c897a99b1 100644
>> > --- a/qapi/migration.json
>> > +++ b/qapi/migration.json
>> > @@ -759,6 +759,16 @@
>> > # @max-bandwidth: to set maximum speed for migration. maximum speed
>> > # in bytes per second. (Since 2.8)
>> > #
>> > +# @avail-switchover-bandwidth: to set the available bandwidth that
>> > +# migration can use during switchover phase. NOTE! This does not
>> > +# limit the bandwidth during switchover, but only for calculations
>> > when
>> > +# making decisions to switchover. By default, this value is zero,
>> > +# which means QEMU will estimate the bandwidth automatically. This
>> > can
>> > +# be set when the estimated value is not accurate, while the user is
>> > +# able to guarantee such bandwidth is available when switching over.
>> > +# When specified correctly, this can make the switchover decision much
>> > +# more accurate. (Since 8.2)
>>
>> We tend to eschew abbreviations in QAPI schema identifiers.
>> available-switchover-bandwidth is a mouthful, though. What do you
>> think?
>
> The named changed in the past versions, and IIRC avail-switchover-bandwidth
> is something we came up with last.. assuming a trade-off between length and
> sane meanings. I don't have anything better to come up.. :)
>
> Please shoot if you have better suggestions. We still have three weeks to
> 8.2 soft freeze.
I just had a similar conversation with Vladimir for "[PATCH 2/4] qapi:
introduce device-sync-config". Quoting myself:
In the words of Captain Barbossa, it's "more what you'd call
'guidelines' than actual rules."
I didn't come up with the "avoid abbreviations" stylistic guideline. I
inherited it.
I do like consistent style. I don't like excessively long names.
Sometimes these likes conflict, and we need to pick.
For what it's worth, there's precedence for "avail" in the schema.
Let's move on.
