From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39035) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dg1fN-0004Tq-Hj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:35:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dg1fK-00066L-S4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:35:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38288) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dg1fK-000657-Iv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:35:18 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 341AE29B5F2 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 04:35:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:35:12 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20170811043512.GH26015@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <20170808162629.32493-1-quintela@redhat.com> <20170808162629.32493-16-quintela@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170808162629.32493-16-quintela@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 15/19] migration: Create thread infrastructure for multifd recv side List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Juan Quintela Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com, lvivier@redhat.com On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:26:25PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: > We make the locking and the transfer of information specific, even if we > are still receiving things through the main thread. > > Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela > > -- > > We split when we create the main channel and where we start the main > migration thread, so we wait for the creation of the other threads. > > Use multifd_clear_group(). > --- > migration/migration.c | 7 ++++--- > migration/migration.h | 1 + > migration/ram.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > migration/socket.c | 2 +- > 4 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c > index 8e9505a..b78dffc 100644 > --- a/migration/migration.c > +++ b/migration/migration.c > @@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ static void migration_incoming_setup(QEMUFile *f) > qemu_file_set_blocking(f, false); > } > > -static void migration_incoming_process(void) > +void migration_incoming_process(void) > { > Coroutine *co = qemu_coroutine_create(process_incoming_migration_co, NULL); > qemu_coroutine_enter(co); > @@ -400,9 +400,10 @@ void migration_ioc_process_incoming(QIOChannel *ioc) > if (!mis->from_src_file) { > QEMUFile *f = qemu_fopen_channel_input(ioc); > mis->from_src_file = f; > - migration_fd_process_incoming(f); > + migration_incoming_setup(f); Here now we only setup the incoming channels, but not processing it any more. Then would it be good we rename the function name as well? The old "migration_ioc_process_incoming" has hints that it processed something... And... > + return; > } > - /* We still only have a single channel. Nothing to do here yet */ > + multifd_new_channel(ioc); > } [...] > @@ -183,12 +183,12 @@ static gboolean socket_accept_incoming_migration(QIOChannel *ioc, > > qio_channel_set_name(QIO_CHANNEL(sioc), "migration-socket-incoming"); > migration_channel_process_incoming(QIO_CHANNEL(sioc)); > - object_unref(OBJECT(sioc)); > > out: > if (migration_has_all_channels()) { > /* Close listening socket as its no longer needed */ > qio_channel_close(ioc, NULL); > + migration_incoming_process(); ... here we only added migration_incoming_process() for sockets. Would that break fd/exec migration? Thanks, > return G_SOURCE_REMOVE; > } else { > return G_SOURCE_CONTINUE; -- Peter Xu