Re: [PATCH v3 08/24] migration: Add thread pool of optional load threads

[Peter Xu]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 12:05:23AM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> > Maybe move it over to migration_object_init()?  Then we keep
> > qemu_loadvm_state_setup() only invoke the load_setup()s.
> 
> AFAIK migration_object_init() is called unconditionally
> at QEMU startup even if there won't me any migration done?
> 
> Creating a load thread pool there seems wasteful if no
> incoming migration will ever take place (or will but only
> much later).

I was expecting an empty pool to not be a major resource, but if that's a
concern, yes we can do that until later.

[...]

> > > > > @@ -3007,6 +3071,19 @@ int qemu_loadvm_state(QEMUFile *f)
> > > > >            return ret;
> > > > >        }
> > > > > +    if (ret == 0) {
> > > > > +        bql_unlock(); /* Let load threads do work requiring BQL */
> > > > > +        thread_pool_wait(load_threads);
> > > > > +        bql_lock();
> > > > > +
> > > > > +        ret = load_threads_ret;
> > > > > +    }
> > > > > +    /*
> > > > > +     * Set this flag unconditionally so we'll catch further attempts 
> > > > > to
> > > > > +     * start additional threads via an appropriate assert()
> > > > > +     */
> > > > > +    qatomic_set(&load_threads_abort, true);
> > 
> > I assume this is only for debugging purpose and not required.
> > 
> > Setting "abort all threads" to make sure "nobody will add more thread
> > tasks" is pretty awkward, IMHO.  If we really want to protect against it
> > and fail hard, it might be easier after the thread_pool_wait() we free the
> > pool directly (destroy() will see NULL so it'll skip; still need to free
> > there in case migration failed before this).  Then any enqueue will access
> > null pointer on the pool.
> 
> We don't want to destroy the thread pool in the path where the downtime
> is still counting.

Yeah this makes sense.

> 
> That's why we only do cleanup after the migration is complete.
> 
> The above setting of load_threads_abort flag also makes sure that we abort
> load threads if the migration is going to fail for other reasons (non-load
> threads related) - in other words, when the above block with 
> thread_pool_wait()
> isn't even entered due to ret already containing an earlier error.

In that case IIUC we should cleanup the load threads in destroy(), not
here?  Especially with the comment that's even more confusing.

-- 
Peter Xu