qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
Cc: Hailiang Zhang <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>,
	Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
	Leonardo Bras Soares Passos <lsoaresp@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty()
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:47:06 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YOSXGpEB323VWepM@t490s> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <562b42cbd5674853af21be3297fbaada@intel.com>

On Sat, Jul 03, 2021 at 02:53:27AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 3:07 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 02.07.21 04:48, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 10:22 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >> On 01.07.21 14:51, Peter Xu wrote:
> > 
> > I think that clearly shows the issue.
> > 
> > My theory I did not verify yet: Assume we have 1GB chunks in the clear bmap.
> > Assume the VM reports all pages within a 1GB chunk as free (easy with a fresh
> > VM). While processing hints, we will clear the bits from the dirty bmap in the
> > RAMBlock. As we will never migrate any page of that 1GB chunk, we will not
> > actually clear the dirty bitmap of the memory region. When re-syncing, we will
> > set all bits bits in the dirty bmap again from the dirty bitmap in the memory
> > region. Thus, many of our hints end up being mostly ignored. The smaller the
> > clear bmap chunk, the more extreme the issue.
> 
> OK, that looks possible. We need to clear the related bits from the memory region
> bitmap before skipping the free pages. Could you try with below patch:
> 
> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
> index ace8ad431c..a1f6df3e6c 100644
> --- a/migration/ram.c
> +++ b/migration/ram.c
> @@ -811,6 +811,26 @@ unsigned long migration_bitmap_find_dirty(RAMState *rs, RAMBlock *rb,
>      return next;
>  }
> 
> +
> +static void migration_clear_memory_region_dirty_bitmap(RAMState *rs,
> +                                                       RAMBlock *rb,
> +                                                      unsigned long page)
> +{
> +    uint8_t shift;
> +    hwaddr size, start;
> +
> +    if (!rb->clear_bmap || !clear_bmap_test_and_clear(rb, page))
> +        return;
> +
> +    shift = rb->clear_bmap_shift;
> +    assert(shift >= 6);
> +
> +    size = 1ULL << (TARGET_PAGE_BITS + shift);
> +    start = (((ram_addr_t)page) << TARGET_PAGE_BITS) & (-size);
> +    trace_migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(rb->idstr, start, size, page);
> +    memory_region_clear_dirty_bitmap(rb->mr, start, size);
> +}
> +
>  static inline bool migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(RAMState *rs,
>                                                  RAMBlock *rb,
>                                                  unsigned long page)
> @@ -827,26 +847,9 @@ static inline bool migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(RAMState *rs,
>       * the page in the chunk we clear the remote dirty bitmap for all.
>       * Clearing it earlier won't be a problem, but too late will.
>       */
> -    if (rb->clear_bmap && clear_bmap_test_and_clear(rb, page)) {
> -        uint8_t shift = rb->clear_bmap_shift;
> -        hwaddr size = 1ULL << (TARGET_PAGE_BITS + shift);
> -        hwaddr start = (((ram_addr_t)page) << TARGET_PAGE_BITS) & (-size);
> -
> -        /*
> -         * CLEAR_BITMAP_SHIFT_MIN should always guarantee this... this
> -         * can make things easier sometimes since then start address
> -         * of the small chunk will always be 64 pages aligned so the
> -         * bitmap will always be aligned to unsigned long.  We should
> -         * even be able to remove this restriction but I'm simply
> -         * keeping it.
> -         */
> -        assert(shift >= 6);
> -        trace_migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(rb->idstr, start, size, page);
> -        memory_region_clear_dirty_bitmap(rb->mr, start, size);
> -    }
> +    migration_clear_memory_region_dirty_bitmap(rs, rb, page);
> 
>      ret = test_and_clear_bit(page, rb->bmap);
> -
>      if (ret) {
>          rs->migration_dirty_pages--;
>      }
> @@ -2746,7 +2749,7 @@ void qemu_guest_free_page_hint(void *addr, size_t len)
>  {
>      RAMBlock *block;
>      ram_addr_t offset;
> -    size_t used_len, start, npages;
> +    size_t used_len, start, npages, page_to_clear, i = 0;
>      MigrationState *s = migrate_get_current();
> 
>      /* This function is currently expected to be used during live migration */
> @@ -2775,6 +2778,19 @@ void qemu_guest_free_page_hint(void *addr, size_t len)
>          start = offset >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS;
>          npages = used_len >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS;
> 
> +        /*
> +         * The skipped free pages are equavelent to be sent from clear_bmap's
> +        * perspective, so clear the bits from the memory region bitmap which
> +        * are initially set. Otherwise those skipped pages will be sent in
> +        * the next round after syncing from the memory region bitmap.
> +        */
> +        /*
> +         * The skipped free pages are equavelent to be sent from clear_bmap's
> +        * perspective, so clear the bits from the memory region bitmap which
> +        * are initially set. Otherwise those skipped pages will be sent in
> +        * the next round after syncing from the memory region bitmap.
> +        */
> +       do {
> +            page_to_clear = start + (i++ << block->clear_bmap_shift);

Why "i" needs to be shifted?

> +            migration_clear_memory_region_dirty_bitmap(ram_state,
> +                                                       block,
> +                                                       page_to_clear);
> +       } while (i <= npages >> block->clear_bmap_shift);

I agree with David that this should be better put into the mutex section, if so
we'd also touch up comment for bitmap_mutex.  Or is it a reason to explicitly
not do so?

> +
>          qemu_mutex_lock(&ram_state->bitmap_mutex);
>          ram_state->migration_dirty_pages -=
>                        bitmap_count_one_with_offset(block->bmap, start, npages);

After my patch (move mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty()), maybe we can
call migration_bitmap_clear_dirty() directly here rather than introducing a new
helper?  It'll done all the dirty/clear bmap ops including dirty page accounting.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu



  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-07-06 17:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-30 20:08 [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty() Peter Xu
2021-07-01  4:42 ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-01 12:51   ` Peter Xu
2021-07-01 14:21     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-07-02  2:48       ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-02  7:06         ` David Hildenbrand
2021-07-03  2:53           ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-05 13:41             ` David Hildenbrand
2021-07-06  9:41               ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-06 10:05                 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-07-06 17:39                   ` Peter Xu
2021-07-07 12:45                     ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-07 16:45                       ` Peter Xu
2021-07-07 23:25                         ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-08  0:21                           ` Peter Xu
2021-07-06 17:47             ` Peter Xu [this message]
2021-07-07  8:34               ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-07 16:54                 ` Peter Xu
2021-07-08  2:55                   ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-08 18:10                     ` Peter Xu
2021-07-02  2:29     ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-06 17:59       ` Peter Xu
2021-07-07  8:33         ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-07 16:44           ` Peter Xu
2021-07-08  2:49             ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-08 18:30               ` Peter Xu
2021-07-09  8:58                 ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-09 14:48                   ` Peter Xu
2021-07-13  8:20                     ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-03 16:31 ` Lukas Straub
2021-07-04 14:14   ` Lukas Straub
2021-07-06 18:37     ` Peter Xu
2021-07-13  8:40 ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-13 10:22   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-07-14  5:03     ` Wang, Wei W
2021-07-13 15:59   ` Peter Xu
2021-07-14  5:04     ` Wang, Wei W

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=YOSXGpEB323VWepM@t490s \
    --to=peterx@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
    --cc=lsoaresp@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=quintela@redhat.com \
    --cc=wei.w.wang@intel.com \
    --cc=zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com \
    /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).