Open Stack

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 13:33:24 +0100
Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 11:21 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 07:29:57AM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:  
> > > hi folks,
> > > we are defining a device migration compatibility interface that helps upper
> > > layer stack like openstack/ovirt/libvirt to check if two devices are
> > > live migration compatible.
> > > The "devices" here could be MDEVs, physical devices, or hybrid of the two.
> > > e.g. we could use it to check whether
> > > - a src MDEV can migrate to a target MDEV,  
> mdev live migration is completely possible to do but i agree with Dan barrange's comments
> from the point of view of openstack integration i dont see calling out to a vender sepecific
> tool to be an accpetable

As I replied to Dan, I'm hoping Yan was referring more to vendor
specific knowledge rather than actual tools.

> solutions for device compatiablity checking. the sys filesystem
> that describs the mdevs that can be created shoudl also
> contain the relevent infomation such
> taht nova could integrate it via libvirt xml representation or directly retrive the
> info from
> sysfs.
> > > - a src VF in SRIOV can migrate to a target VF in SRIOV,  
> so vf to vf migration is not possible in the general case as there is no standarised
> way to transfer teh device state as part of the siorv specs produced by the pci-sig
> as such there is not vender neutral way to support sriov live migration. 

We're not talking about a general case, we're talking about physical
devices which have vfio wrappers or hooks with device specific
knowledge in order to support the vfio migration interface.  The point
is that a discussion around vfio device migration cannot be limited to
mdev devices.

> > > - a src MDEV can migration to a target VF in SRIOV.  
> that also makes this unviable
> > >   (e.g. SIOV/SRIOV backward compatibility case)
> > > 
> > > The upper layer stack could use this interface as the last step to check
> > > if one device is able to migrate to another device before triggering a real
> > > live migration procedure.  
> well actully that is already too late really. ideally we would want to do this compaiablity
> check much sooneer to avoid the migration failing. in an openstack envionment  at least
> by the time we invoke libvirt (assuming your using the libvirt driver) to do the migration we have alreaedy
> finished schduling the instance to the new host. if if we do the compatiablity check at this point
> and it fails then the live migration is aborted and will not be retired. These types of late check lead to a
> poor user experince as unless you check the migration detial it basically looks like the migration was ignored
> as it start to migrate and then continuge running on the orgininal host.
> 
> when using generic pci passhotuhg with openstack, the pci alias is intended to reference a single vendor id/product
> id so you will have 1+ alias for each type of device. that allows openstack to schedule based on the availability of a
> compatibale device because we track inventories of pci devices and can query that when selecting a host.
> 
> if we were to support mdev live migration in the future we would want to take the same declarative approch.
> 1 interospec the capability of the deivce we manage
> 2 create inventories of the allocatable devices and there capabilities
> 3 schdule the instance to a host based on the device-type/capabilities and claim it atomicly to prevent raceces
> 4 have the lower level hyperviors do addtional validation if need prelive migration.
> 
> this proposal seams to be targeting extending step 4 where as ideally we should focuse on providing the info that would
> be relevant in set 1 preferably in a vendor neutral way vai a kernel interface like /sys.

I think this is reading a whole lot into the phrase "last step".  We
want to make the information available for a management engine to
consume as needed to make informed decisions regarding likely
compatible target devices.
 
> > > we are not sure if this interface is of value or help to you. please don't
> > > hesitate to drop your valuable comments.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > (1) interface definition
> > > The interface is defined in below way:
> > > 
> > >              __    userspace
> > >               /\              \
> > >              /                 \write
> > >             / read              \
> > >    ________/__________       ___\|/_____________
> > >   | migration_version |     | migration_version |-->check migration
> > >   ---------------------     ---------------------   compatibility
> > >      device A                    device B
> > > 
> > > 
> > > a device attribute named migration_version is defined under each device's
> > > sysfs node. e.g. (/sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:00\:02.0/$mdev_UUID/migration_version).  
> this might be useful as we could tag the inventory with the migration version and only might to
> devices with  the same version

Is cross version compatibility something that you'd consider using?

> > > userspace tools read the migration_version as a string from the source device,
> > > and write it to the migration_version sysfs attribute in the target device.  
> this would not be useful as the schduler cannot directlly connect to the compute host
> and even if it could it would be extreamly slow to do this for 1000s of hosts and potentally
> multiple devices per host.

Seems similar to Dan's requirement, looks like the 'read for version,
write for compatibility' test idea isn't really viable.

> > > 
> > > The userspace should treat ANY of below conditions as two devices not compatible:
> > > - any one of the two devices does not have a migration_version attribute
> > > - error when reading from migration_version attribute of one device
> > > - error when writing migration_version string of one device to
> > >   migration_version attribute of the other device
> > > 
> > > The string read from migration_version attribute is defined by device vendor
> > > driver and is completely opaque to the userspace.  
> opaque vendor specific stings that higher level orchestros have to pass form host
> to host and cant reason about are evil, when allowed they prolifroate and
> makes any idea of a vendor nutral abstraction and interoperablity between systems
> impossible to reason about. that said there is a way to make it opaue but still useful
> to userspace. see below
> > > for a Intel vGPU, string format can be defined like
> > > "parent device PCI ID" + "version of gvt driver" + "mdev type" + "aggregator count".
> > > 
> > > for an NVMe VF connecting to a remote storage. it could be
> > > "PCI ID" + "driver version" + "configured remote storage URL"
> > > 
> > > for a QAT VF, it may be
> > > "PCI ID" + "driver version" + "supported encryption set".
> > > 
> > > (to avoid namespace confliction from each vendor, we may prefix a driver name to
> > > each migration_version string. e.g. i915-v1-8086-591d-i915-GVTg_V5_8-1)  
> honestly i would much prefer if the version string was just a semver string.
> e.g. {major}.{minor}.{bugfix} 
> 
> if you do a driver/frimware update and break compatiablity with an older version bump the
> major version.
> 
> if you add optional a feature that does not break backwards compatiablity if you migrate
> an older instance to the new host then just bump the minor/feature number.
> 
> if you have a fix for a bug that does not change the feature set or compatiblity backwards or
> forwards then bump the bugfix number
> 
> then the check is as simple as 
> 1.) is the mdev type the same
> 2.) is the major verion the same
> 3.) am i going form the same version to same version or same version to newer version
> 
> if all 3 are true we can migrate.
> e.g. 
> 2.0.1 -> 2.1.1 (ok same major version and migrating from older feature release to newer feature release)
> 2.1.1 -> 2.0.1 (not ok same major version and migrating from new feature release to old feature release may be
> incompatable)
> 2.0.0 -> 3.0.0 (not ok chaning major version)
> 2.0.1 -> 2.0.0 (ok same major and minor version, all bugfixs in the same minor release should be compatibly)

What's the value of the bugfix field in this scheme?

The simplicity is good, but is it too simple.  It's not immediately
clear to me whether all features can be hidden behind a minor version.
For instance, if we have an mdev device that supports this notion of
aggregation, which is proposed as a solution to the problem that
physical hardware might support lots and lots of assignable interfaces
which can be combined into arbitrary sets for mdev devices, making it
impractical to expose an mdev type for every possible enumeration of
assignable interfaces within a device.  We therefore expose a base type
where the aggregation is built later.  This essentially puts us in a
scenario where even within an mdev type running on the same driver,
there are devices that are not directly compatible with each other.
 
> we dont need vendor to rencode the driver name or vendor id and product id in the string. that info is alreay
> available both to the device driver and to userspace via /sys already we just need to know if version of
> the same mdev are compatiable so a simple semver version string which is well know in the software world
> at least is a clean abstration we can reuse.

This presumes there's no cross device migration.  An mdev type can only
be migrated to the same mdev type, all of the devices within that type
have some based compatibility, a phsyical device can only be migrated to
the same physical device.  In the latter case what defines the type?  If
it's a PCI device, is it only vendor:device IDs?  What about revision?
What about subsystem IDs?  What about possibly an onboard ROM or
internal firmware?  The information may be available, but which things
are relevant to migration?  We already see desires to allow migration
between physical and mdev, but also to expose mdev types that might be
composable to be compatible with other types.  Thanks,

Alex