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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C62CC433FE for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 19:19:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:33796 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofnRp-0005a1-Rk for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 15:19:21 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43354) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofnMn-0003vr-7L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 15:14:09 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]:47066) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofnMh-0006LB-Vc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 15:14:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1664910842; 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=YBvQlf0gDiNLyhJRLZtKDkgq44bRLKo0uC0d3f8FRdA=; b=SowJ/D6KTD8ENbwGV3RLRzqa6+fK9NUM8RWWD0TBsth9ymYXXTAhz0eqgSp/xRLhnduBcS e+gfcxm6IieQbRhl9jtuAaI4+oOtk3ROC0TRh5KYJV/6ytBYxDcsx/Uxk4zfwgflJzqlrt lM0uw4kmdnzOxUDeeUp0zqqVZ6WQP4g= Received: from mail-qv1-f69.google.com (mail-qv1-f69.google.com [209.85.219.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-199-vIXEKEa8M4K82_h4xcaufw-1; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 15:13:53 -0400 X-MC-Unique: vIXEKEa8M4K82_h4xcaufw-1 Received: by mail-qv1-f69.google.com with SMTP id cy11-20020a05621418cb00b004b17b3cf429so5642049qvb.6 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 12:13:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=YBvQlf0gDiNLyhJRLZtKDkgq44bRLKo0uC0d3f8FRdA=; b=HWWFOVdn5WohMgCsGBXU5RTBBMs33S6M7Cyyfhy7EdpfV11MLCXT7ZRfz4hXGX9k/f h6q+fQBh/kpUGf9AgS2lJ9y49xO4+6jq4iAfKANu121sqxDLnyPeF6uHgpX3z+XFY0dK 8PZtpeCqZARZTWLKzKTgVFJsRegwUilt9OeeT/oQ7DN89rSX96mY7UcPog+fgdOz2Hfw yDAxCfEbDKNcX+s913/3wfbbXUTqInW01Rtf0m80AVb/enzqWgGlb0ZUTY9Jl1U6D9K1 yEjqS08Q57uGNFbbdkkPyhyiP7zMopkPxYG1D7/+pElmqSylhey3sKxV+FWNuzf47/a1 WBag== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2scNcq/6kb06vEBETwdoaS4Sxey8d6yZishDc6HF9EDkJzPbXi rBGyhP2pWKDZqIichfpccYOiqYmH02vTwS1WHLK9/aWiYIR7nJsejm6jz5S7NV5OgDv9vIDxsl/ sgPUGLv8i69OdsYU= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5f0a:0:b0:35a:6fa8:23c4 with SMTP id x10-20020ac85f0a000000b0035a6fa823c4mr20885644qta.312.1664910833054; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 12:13:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5oN78FJh2/JmZTd0nkGwdsFlw7GDK1A8OMn6LZ9MV6RThu6OXoH2aTF68M+JMfTjxYAy+/rQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5f0a:0:b0:35a:6fa8:23c4 with SMTP id x10-20020ac85f0a000000b0035a6fa823c4mr20885621qta.312.1664910832777; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 12:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x1n (bras-base-aurron9127w-grc-46-70-31-27-79.dsl.bell.ca. [70.31.27.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c11-20020ac853cb000000b0035a691cec8esm12104611qtq.29.2022.10.04.12.13.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 04 Oct 2022 12:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 15:13:51 -0400 From: Peter Xu To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Manish Mishra , Juan Quintela , ani@anisinha.ca, Leonardo Bras Soares Passos , "Daniel P . Berrange" Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] migration: Yield bitmap_mutex properly when sending/sleeping Message-ID: References: <20220920225106.48451-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20220920225210.48732-1-peterx@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=peterx@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:55:10PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Peter Xu (peterx@redhat.com) wrote: > > Don't take the bitmap mutex when sending pages, or when being throttled by > > migration_rate_limit() (which is a bit tricky to call it here in ram code, > > but seems still helpful). > > > > It prepares for the possibility of concurrently sending pages in >1 threads > > using the function ram_save_host_page() because all threads may need the > > bitmap_mutex to operate on bitmaps, so that either sendmsg() or any kind of > > qemu_sem_wait() blocking for one thread will not block the other from > > progressing. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu > > I generally dont like taking locks conditionally; but this kind of looks > OK; I think it needs a big comment on the start of the function saying > that it's called and left with the lock held but that it might drop it > temporarily. Right, the code is slightly hard to read, I just didn't yet see a good and easy solution for it yet. It's just that we may still want to keep the lock as long as possible for precopy in one shot. > > > --- > > migration/ram.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c > > index 8303252b6d..6e7de6087a 100644 > > --- a/migration/ram.c > > +++ b/migration/ram.c > > @@ -2463,6 +2463,7 @@ static void postcopy_preempt_reset_channel(RAMState *rs) > > */ > > static int ram_save_host_page(RAMState *rs, PageSearchStatus *pss) > > { > > + bool page_dirty, release_lock = postcopy_preempt_active(); > > Could you rename that to something like 'drop_lock' - you are taking the > lock at the end even when you have 'release_lock' set - which is a bit > strange naming. Is there any difference on "drop" or "release"? I'll change the name anyway since I definitely trust you on any English comments, but please still let me know - I love to learn more on those! :) > > > int tmppages, pages = 0; > > size_t pagesize_bits = > > qemu_ram_pagesize(pss->block) >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > > @@ -2486,22 +2487,41 @@ static int ram_save_host_page(RAMState *rs, PageSearchStatus *pss) > > break; > > } > > > > + page_dirty = migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(rs, pss->block, pss->page); > > + /* > > + * Properly yield the lock only in postcopy preempt mode because > > + * both migration thread and rp-return thread can operate on the > > + * bitmaps. > > + */ > > + if (release_lock) { > > + qemu_mutex_unlock(&rs->bitmap_mutex); > > + } > > Shouldn't the unlock/lock move inside the 'if (page_dirty) {' ? I think we can move into it, but it may not be as optimal as keeping it as-is. Consider a case where we've got the bitmap with continous zero bits. During postcopy, the migration thread could be spinning here with the lock held even if it doesn't send a thing. It could still block the other return path thread on sending urgent pages which may be outside the zero zones. > > > > /* Check the pages is dirty and if it is send it */ > > - if (migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(rs, pss->block, pss->page)) { > > + if (page_dirty) { > > tmppages = ram_save_target_page(rs, pss); > > - if (tmppages < 0) { > > - return tmppages; > > + if (tmppages >= 0) { > > + pages += tmppages; > > + /* > > + * Allow rate limiting to happen in the middle of huge pages if > > + * something is sent in the current iteration. > > + */ > > + if (pagesize_bits > 1 && tmppages > 0) { > > + migration_rate_limit(); > > This feels interesting, I know it's no change from before, and it's > difficult to do here, but it seems odd to hold the lock around the > sleeping in the rate limit. Good point.. I think I'll leave it there for this patch because it's totally irrelevant, but seems proper in the future to do unlocking too for normal precopy. Maybe I'll just attach a patch at the end of this series when I repost. That'll be easier before things got forgotten again. -- Peter Xu