From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B23C433DF for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:33:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BE9A206DA for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:33:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="LvQ5eY2O" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4BE9A206DA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:39684 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k30oi-0000Eg-F2 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:33:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40448) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k30kX-0004T9-Rj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:29:18 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:34247 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k30kU-0000oe-Na for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:29:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1596562152; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZFPpICNGVx8dbab8d5O3ZgwE0BjqidNtZYPOXhxwdVM=; b=LvQ5eY2O5rUuQIHc7r4BUJEG+qflM9zq1Pl/ai7522l4XYlrRcFiIdxHqsbpktaMjU+e9H yoOj4KuxaNwT8fz5tkoLUOlfcuNqFHIYex4kyL0CVpNa2KeWjbOUX4sRnyf0Ns0kmqjQbH X1k18Y7JzsespAgz4VMk5qThjvAHMlc= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-212-nGCUxkQsPkuS_DpAjD63ZQ-1; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:29:07 -0400 X-MC-Unique: nGCUxkQsPkuS_DpAjD63ZQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBEF591277; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:29:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from work-vm (ovpn-114-108.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.108]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0723510013D0; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:29:01 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" To: Chuan Zheng Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/8] migration/dirtyrate: Compare hash results for recorded ramblock Message-ID: <20200804172901.GH2659@work-vm> References: <1595646669-109310-1-git-send-email-zhengchuan@huawei.com> <1595646669-109310-6-git-send-email-zhengchuan@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1595646669-109310-6-git-send-email-zhengchuan@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.139.110.120; envelope-from=dgilbert@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/08/04 01:28:23 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -30 X-Spam_score: -3.1 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com, quintela@redhat.com, linyilu@huawei.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, alex.chen@huawei.com, ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com, fangying1@huawei.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" * Chuan Zheng (zhengchuan@huawei.com) wrote: > From: Zheng Chuan > > Compare hash results for recorded ramblock. > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Chuan > Signed-off-by: YanYing Zhang > --- > migration/dirtyrate.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/migration/dirtyrate.c b/migration/dirtyrate.c > index 45cfc91..7badc53 100644 > --- a/migration/dirtyrate.c > +++ b/migration/dirtyrate.c > @@ -202,6 +202,83 @@ static int record_block_hash_info(struct dirtyrate_config config, > return 0; > } > > +static int cal_block_dirty_rate(struct block_dirty_info *info) > +{ > + uint8_t *md = NULL; > + size_t hash_len; > + int i; > + int ret = 0; > + > + hash_len = qcrypto_hash_digest_len(QCRYPTO_HASH_ALG_MD5); > + md = g_new0(uint8_t, hash_len); Is 'hash_len' actually constant for a given algorithm, like MD5 ? i.e. can we just have a nice fixed size array? > + for (i = 0; i < info->sample_pages_count; i++) { > + ret = get_block_vfn_hash(info, info->sample_page_vfn[i], &md, &hash_len); > + if (ret < 0) { > + goto out; > + } > + > + if (memcmp(md, info->hash_result + i * hash_len, hash_len) != 0) { > + info->sample_dirty_count++; When the page doesn't match, do we have to update info->hash_result with the new hash? If the page is only modified once, and we catch it on this cycle, we wouldn't want to catch it next time around. > + } > + } > + > +out: > + g_free(md); > + return ret; > +} > + > +static bool find_block_matched(RAMBlock *block, struct block_dirty_info *infos, > + int count, struct block_dirty_info **matched) > +{ > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { > + if (!strcmp(infos[i].idstr, qemu_ram_get_idstr(block))) { > + break; > + } > + } > + > + if (i == count) { > + return false; > + } > + > + if (infos[i].block_addr != qemu_ram_get_host_addr(block) || > + infos[i].block_pages != > + (qemu_ram_get_used_length(block) >> DIRTYRATE_PAGE_SIZE_SHIFT)) { How does this happen? > + return false; > + } > + > + *matched = &infos[i]; > + return true; > +} > + > +static int compare_block_hash_info(struct block_dirty_info *info, int block_index) > +{ > + struct block_dirty_info *block_dinfo = NULL; > + RAMBlock *block = NULL; > + > + RAMBLOCK_FOREACH_MIGRATABLE(block) { > + if (ram_block_skip(block) < 0) { > + continue; > + } > + block_dinfo = NULL; > + if (!find_block_matched(block, info, block_index + 1, &block_dinfo)) { > + continue; > + } > + if (cal_block_dirty_rate(block_dinfo) < 0) { > + return -1; > + } > + update_dirtyrate_stat(block_dinfo); > + } > + if (!dirty_stat.total_sample_count) { > + return -1; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > + > static void calculate_dirtyrate(struct dirtyrate_config config, int64_t time) > { > /* todo */ > -- > 1.8.3.1 > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK