From: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>,
Elena Ufimtseva <elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] migration/multifd: Remove channels_ready semaphore
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:53:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ttql20hz.fsf@secure.mitica> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZTF9vL8yyn6McuTx@x1n> (Peter Xu's message of "Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:04:28 -0400")
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 08:41:26PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> We can changing pending_job to a bool if you preffer. I think that we
>> have nailed all the off_by_one errors by now (famous last words).
>
> Would it work to make pending_job a bool, even with SYNC? It seems to me
> multifd_send_sync_main() now can boost pending_job even if pending_job==1.
Then a int is ok, I think.
> That's also the place where I really think confusing too; where it looks
> like the migration thread can modify a pending job's flag as long as it is
> fast enough before the send thread put that onto the wire.
It never does.
for (i = next_channel;; i = (i + 1) % migrate_multifd_channels()) {
qemu_mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
...
if (!p->pending_job) {
p->pending_job++;
next_channel = (i + 1) % migrate_multifd_channels();
break;
}
qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
}
If pending_job == 0 -> owner of the channel is migration_thread and it
can use it.
If pending_job > 0 -> owner of the channel is the channel thread and
migration_thread can't use it.
I think that this is easy to understand. You are right that it is not
_explained_. And clearly, if you have to ask, it is not obvious O:-)
Yes, it was obvious to me, that is the reason why I wrote it on the 1st
place. Notice also that it is a common idiom in multithreaded apps.
That allows it to do stuff without having to have a mutex locked, so
other threads can "look" into the state.
> Then it's
> unpredictable whether the SYNC flag will be sent with current packet (where
> due to pending_jobs==1 already, can contain valid pages), or will be only
> set for the next one (where there will have 0 real page).
I have to think about this one.
Decrease pending_jobs there if we are doing multiple jobs?
But we still have the issue of the semaphore.
> IMHO it'll be good to separate the sync task, then we can change
> pending_jobs to bool. Something like:
>
> bool pending_send_page;
> bool pending_send_sync;
current code:
qemu_mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
qemu_mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
if (p->pending_job) {
uint64_t packet_num = p->packet_num;
uint32_t flags;
p->normal_num = 0;
if (use_zero_copy_send) {
p->iovs_num = 0;
} else {
p->iovs_num = 1;
}
for (int i = 0; i < p->pages->num; i++) {
p->normal[p->normal_num] = p->pages->offset[i];
p->normal_num++;
}
if (p->normal_num) {
ret = multifd_send_state->ops->send_prepare(p, &local_err);
if (ret != 0) {
qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
break;
}
}
multifd_send_fill_packet(p);
flags = p->flags;
p->flags = 0;
p->num_packets++;
p->total_normal_pages += p->normal_num;
p->pages->num = 0;
p->pages->block = NULL;
qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
trace_multifd_send(p->id, packet_num, p->normal_num, flags,
p->next_packet_size);
if (use_zero_copy_send) {
/* Send header first, without zerocopy */
ret = qio_channel_write_all(p->c, (void *)p->packet,
p->packet_len, &local_err);
if (ret != 0) {
break;
}
} else {
/* Send header using the same writev call */
p->iov[0].iov_len = p->packet_len;
p->iov[0].iov_base = p->packet;
}
ret = qio_channel_writev_full_all(p->c, p->iov, p->iovs_num, NULL,
0, p->write_flags, &local_err);
if (ret != 0) {
break;
}
stat64_add(&mig_stats.multifd_bytes,
p->next_packet_size + p->packet_len);
stat64_add(&mig_stats.transferred,
p->next_packet_size + p->packet_len);
p->next_packet_size = 0;
qemu_mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
p->pending_job--;
qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
if (flags & MULTIFD_FLAG_SYNC) {
qemu_sem_post(&p->sem_sync);
}
} else {
qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
/* sometimes there are spurious wakeups */
}
Your suggested change:
qemu_mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
if (p->pending_job_page) {
uint64_t packet_num = p->packet_num;
uint32_t flags;
p->normal_num = 0;
if (use_zero_copy_send) {
p->iovs_num = 0;
} else {
p->iovs_num = 1;
}
for (int i = 0; i < p->pages->num; i++) {
p->normal[p->normal_num] = p->pages->offset[i];
p->normal_num++;
}
if (p->normal_num) {
ret = multifd_send_state->ops->send_prepare(p, &local_err);
if (ret != 0) {
qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
break;
}
}
multifd_send_fill_packet(p);
flags = p->flags;
p->flags = 0;
p->num_packets++;
p->total_normal_pages += p->normal_num;
p->pages->num = 0;
p->pages->block = NULL;
qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
trace_multifd_send(p->id, packet_num, p->normal_num, flags,
p->next_packet_size);
if (use_zero_copy_send) {
/* Send header first, without zerocopy */
ret = qio_channel_write_all(p->c, (void *)p->packet,
p->packet_len, &local_err);
if (ret != 0) {
break;
}
} else {
/* Send header using the same writev call */
p->iov[0].iov_len = p->packet_len;
p->iov[0].iov_base = p->packet;
}
ret = qio_channel_writev_full_all(p->c, p->iov, p->iovs_num, NULL,
0, p->write_flags, &local_err);
if (ret != 0) {
break;
}
stat64_add(&mig_stats.multifd_bytes,
p->next_packet_size + p->packet_len);
stat64_add(&mig_stats.transferred,
p->next_packet_size + p->packet_len);
p->next_packet_size = 0;
qemu_mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
p->pending_job_page = false;
qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
else if (p->pending_job_sync)
uint64_t packet_num = p->packet_num;
uint32_t flags;
p->normal_num = 0;
if (use_zero_copy_send) {
p->iovs_num = 0;
} else {
p->iovs_num = 1;
}
multifd_send_fill_packet(p);
flags = p->flags;
p->flags = 0;
p->num_packets++;
p->total_normal_pages += p->normal_num;
p->pages->num = 0;
p->pages->block = NULL;
qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
trace_multifd_send(p->id, packet_num, p->normal_num, flags,
p->next_packet_size);
if (use_zero_copy_send) {
/* Send header first, without zerocopy */
ret = qio_channel_write_all(p->c, (void *)p->packet,
p->packet_len, &local_err);
if (ret != 0) {
break;
}
} else {
/* Send header using the same writev call */
p->iov[0].iov_len = p->packet_len;
p->iov[0].iov_base = p->packet;
}
ret = qio_channel_writev_full_all(p->c, p->iov, p->iovs_num, NULL,
0, p->write_flags, &local_err);
if (ret != 0) {
break;
}
stat64_add(&mig_stats.multifd_bytes,
p->next_packet_size + p->packet_len);
stat64_add(&mig_stats.transferred,
p->next_packet_size + p->packet_len);
p->next_packet_size = 0;
qemu_mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
p->pending_job_sync = false;
qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
if (flags & MULTIFD_FLAG_SYNC) {
qemu_sem_post(&p->sem_sync);
}
} else {
qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
/* sometimes there are spurious wakeups */
}
I.e. we duplicate much more code than the one that we remove. I am not
convinced.
> Then multifd_send_thread() handles them separately, only attaching
> p->flags=SYNC when pending_send_sync is requested. It guarantees a SYNC
> message will always be a separate packet, which will be crystal clear then.
This is not a requirement.
Code should handle the reception of SYNC with a page. We just don't
sent them because it is more complex.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-20 7:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-12 14:06 [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] migration/multifd: Locking changes Fabiano Rosas
2023-10-12 14:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] migration/multifd: Remove channels_ready semaphore Fabiano Rosas
2023-10-19 9:06 ` Juan Quintela
2023-10-19 14:35 ` Peter Xu
2023-10-19 15:00 ` Juan Quintela
2023-10-19 15:46 ` Peter Xu
2023-10-19 18:28 ` Juan Quintela
2023-10-19 18:50 ` Peter Xu
2023-10-20 7:56 ` Juan Quintela
2023-10-19 14:55 ` Fabiano Rosas
2023-10-19 15:18 ` Juan Quintela
2023-10-19 15:56 ` Fabiano Rosas
2023-10-19 18:41 ` Juan Quintela
2023-10-19 19:04 ` Peter Xu
2023-10-20 7:53 ` Juan Quintela [this message]
2023-10-20 12:48 ` Fabiano Rosas
2023-10-22 20:17 ` Peter Xu
2023-10-12 14:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] migration/multifd: Stop checking p->quit in multifd_send_thread Fabiano Rosas
2023-10-19 9:08 ` Juan Quintela
2023-10-19 14:58 ` Fabiano Rosas
2023-10-19 15:19 ` Peter Xu
2023-10-19 15:19 ` Juan Quintela
2023-10-12 14:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/6] migration/multifd: Decouple control flow from the SYNC packet Fabiano Rosas
2023-10-19 10:28 ` Juan Quintela
2023-10-19 15:31 ` Peter Xu
2023-10-12 14:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/6] migration/multifd: Extract sem_done waiting into a function Fabiano Rosas
2023-10-12 14:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/6] migration/multifd: Stop setting 'quit' outside of channels Fabiano Rosas
2023-10-19 10:35 ` Juan Quintela
2023-10-12 14:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] migration/multifd: Bring back the 'ready' semaphore Fabiano Rosas
2023-10-19 10:43 ` Juan Quintela
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ttql20hz.fsf@secure.mitica \
--to=quintela@redhat.com \
--cc=elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com \
--cc=farosas@suse.de \
--cc=leobras@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).