From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42526) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d2ZWP-0008KN-O9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:39:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d2ZWM-0008Ob-IZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:39:01 -0400 Received: from mailout1.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.11]:57498) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d2ZWM-0008Nt-B2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:38:58 -0400 Received: from eucas1p1.samsung.com (unknown [182.198.249.206]) by mailout1.w1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014)) with ESMTP id <0OOW00B99O0S3S60@mailout1.w1.samsung.com> for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:38:52 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:38:49 +0300 From: Alexey Message-id: <20170424083849.GA27768@aperevalov-ubuntu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline In-reply-to: <20170424081229.GB31384@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <1492175840-5021-1-git-send-email-a.perevalov@samsung.com> <1492175840-5021-4-git-send-email-a.perevalov@samsung.com> <20170421102453.GD2908@work-vm> <20170421152212.GB5101@aperevalov-ubuntu> <20170424081229.GB31384@pxdev.xzpeter.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/6] migration: add UFFD_FEATURE_THREAD_ID feature support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Xu Cc: i.maximets@samsung.com, aarcange@redhat.com, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:12:29PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:22:12PM +0300, Alexey wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:24:54AM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > * Alexey Perevalov (a.perevalov@samsung.com) wrote: > > > > Userfaultfd mechanism is able to provide process thread id, > > > > in case when client request it with UFDD_API ioctl. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Perevalov > > > > > > There seem to be two parts to this: > > > a) Adding the mis parameter to ufd_version_check > > > b) Asking for the feature > > > > > > Please split it into two patches. > > > > > > Also.... > > > > > > > --- > > > > include/migration/postcopy-ram.h | 2 +- > > > > migration/migration.c | 2 +- > > > > migration/postcopy-ram.c | 12 ++++++------ > > > > migration/savevm.c | 2 +- > > > > 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/migration/postcopy-ram.h b/include/migration/postcopy-ram.h > > > > index 8e036b9..809f6db 100644 > > > > --- a/include/migration/postcopy-ram.h > > > > +++ b/include/migration/postcopy-ram.h > > > > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ > > > > #define QEMU_POSTCOPY_RAM_H > > > > > > > > /* Return true if the host supports everything we need to do postcopy-ram */ > > > > -bool postcopy_ram_supported_by_host(void); > > > > +bool postcopy_ram_supported_by_host(MigrationIncomingState *mis); > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * Make all of RAM sensitive to accesses to areas that haven't yet been written > > > > diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c > > > > index ad4036f..79f6425 100644 > > > > --- a/migration/migration.c > > > > +++ b/migration/migration.c > > > > @@ -802,7 +802,7 @@ void qmp_migrate_set_capabilities(MigrationCapabilityStatusList *params, > > > > * special support. > > > > */ > > > > if (!old_postcopy_cap && runstate_check(RUN_STATE_INMIGRATE) && > > > > - !postcopy_ram_supported_by_host()) { > > > > + !postcopy_ram_supported_by_host(NULL)) { > > > > /* postcopy_ram_supported_by_host will have emitted a more > > > > * detailed message > > > > */ > > > > diff --git a/migration/postcopy-ram.c b/migration/postcopy-ram.c > > > > index dc80dbb..70f0480 100644 > > > > --- a/migration/postcopy-ram.c > > > > +++ b/migration/postcopy-ram.c > > > > @@ -60,13 +60,13 @@ struct PostcopyDiscardState { > > > > #include > > > > #include > > > > > > > > -static bool ufd_version_check(int ufd) > > > > +static bool ufd_version_check(int ufd, MigrationIncomingState *mis) > > > > { > > > > struct uffdio_api api_struct; > > > > uint64_t ioctl_mask; > > > > > > > > api_struct.api = UFFD_API; > > > > - api_struct.features = 0; > > > > + api_struct.features = UFFD_FEATURE_THREAD_ID; > > > > if (ioctl(ufd, UFFDIO_API, &api_struct)) { > > > > error_report("postcopy_ram_supported_by_host: UFFDIO_API failed: %s", > > > > strerror(errno)); > > > > > > You're not actually using the 'mis' here - what I'd expected was > > > something that was going to check if the UFFDIO_API return said that it really > > > had the feature, and if so store a flag in the MIS somewhere. > > > > > > Also, I'm not sure it's right to set 'api_struct.features' on the input - what > > > happens if this is run on an old kernel - we don't want postcopy to fail on > > > an old kernel without your feature. > > > I'm not 100% sure of the interface, but I think the way it works is you set > > > features = 0 before the call, and then check the api_struct.features in the > > > return - in the same way that I check for UFFD_FEATURE_MISSING_HUGETLBFS. > > > > > We need to ask kernel about that feature, > > right, > > kernel returns back available features > > uffdio_api.features = UFFD_API_FEATURES > > but it also stores requested features > > I feel like this does not against Dave's comment, maybe we just need > to send the UFFDIO_API twice? Like: yes, ioctl with UFFDIO_API will fail on old kernel if we will request e.g. UFFD_FEATURE_THREAD_ID or other new feature. So in general way need a per feature request, for better error handling. > > diff --git a/migration/postcopy-ram.c b/migration/postcopy-ram.c > index 85fd8d7..fd0905f 100644 > --- a/migration/postcopy-ram.c > +++ b/migration/postcopy-ram.c > @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ static bool ufd_version_check(int ufd) > { > struct uffdio_api api_struct; > uint64_t ioctl_mask; > + uint64_t features = 0; > > api_struct.api = UFFD_API; > api_struct.features = 0; > @@ -92,6 +93,27 @@ static bool ufd_version_check(int ufd) > return false; > } > } > + > +#ifdef UFFD_FEATURE_THREAD_ID > + if (api_struct.features & UFFD_FEATURE_THREAD_ID) { > + features |= UFFD_FEATURE_THREAD_ID; > + } > +#endif > + > + if (features) { > + /* > + * If there are new features to be enabled from userspace, > + * trigger another UFFDIO_API ioctl. > + */ > + api_struct.api = UFFD_API; > + api_struct.features = features; > + if (ioctl(ufd, UFFDIO_API, &api_struct)) { > + error_report("UFFDIO_API failed to setup features: 0x%"PRIx64, > + features); > + return false; > + } > + } > + > return true; > } > > > /* only enable the requested features for this uffd context */ > > ctx->features = uffd_ctx_features(features); > > > > so, at the time when process thread id is going to be sent > > kernel checks if it was requested > > + if (features & UFFD_FEATURE_THREAD_ID) > > + msg.arg.pagefault.ptid = task_pid_vnr(current); > > (I am slightly curious about why we need this if block, after all > userspace should know whether the ptid field would be valid from the > first UFFDIO_API ioctl, right?) If I correctly understand you question ) that condition was suggested, due to page faulting is performance critical part (in general, not only postcopy case ), that's why it should be enabled from userspace, only for statistics/debug purpose. Also looks like David want to see that feature on QEMU as not always feature too. > > Thanks, > > > > > from patch message: > > > > Process's thread id is being provided when user requeste it > > by setting UFFD_FEATURE_THREAD_ID bit into uffdio_api.features. > > > > UFFD_FEATURE_MISSING_HUGETLBFS - look like default, unconditional > > behavior (I didn't find any usage of that define in kernel). > > -- > Peter Xu > -- BR Alexey