Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] tests/qtests: remove migration test iterations config

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:42:51AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 11:54:55PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > The 'unsigned int interations' config for migration is somewhat
> >> > overkill. Most tests don't set it, and a value of '0' is treated
> >> > as equivalent to '1'. The only test that does set it, xbzrle,
> >> > used a value of '2'.
> >> >
> >> > This setting, however, only relates to the migration iterations
> >> > that take place prior to allowing convergence. IOW, on top of
> >> > this iteration count, there is always at least 1 further migration
> >> > iteration done to deal with pages that are dirtied during the
> >> > previous iteration(s).
> >> >
> >> > IOW, even with iterations==1, the xbzrle test will be running for
> >> > a minimum of 2 iterations. With this in mind we can simplify the
> >> > code and just get rid of the special case.
> >> 
> >> Perhaps the old code was already wrong, but we need at least three
> >> iterations for the xbzrle test:
> >> - 1st iteration: xbzrle is not used, nothing is on cache.
> >
> > Are you sure about this ?  I see ram_save_page() calling
> > save_xbzrle_page() and unless I'm mis-understanding the
> > code, it doesn't appear to skip anything on the 1st
> > iteration.
> 
> I will admit that code is convoluted as hell.
> And I confuse myself a lot here O:-)
> 
> struct RAM_STATE {
>     ...
>     /* Start using XBZRLE (e.g., after the first round). */
>     bool xbzrle_enabled;
> }
> 
> I.e. xbzrle_enabled() and m->xbzrle_enabled are two completely different things.

Aieeeee !  That's confusing indeed :-)

Lets rename that struct field to 'xbzrle_started', to better
distinguish active state from enabled state.


> static int ram_save_page(RAMState *rs, PageSearchStatus *pss)
> {
>     ...
>     if (rs->xbzrle_enabled && !migration_in_postcopy()) {
>         pages = save_xbzrle_page(rs, pss, &p, current_addr,
>                                  block, offset);
>         ....
>     }
>     ....
> }
> 
> and
> 
> static int find_dirty_block(RAMState *rs, PageSearchStatus *pss)
> {
>     /* Update pss->page for the next dirty bit in ramblock */
>     pss_find_next_dirty(pss);
> 
>     if (pss->complete_round && pss->block == rs->last_seen_block &&
>         ...
>         return PAGE_ALL_CLEAN;
>     }
>     if (!offset_in_ramblock(pss->block,
>                             ((ram_addr_t)pss->page) << TARGET_PAGE_BITS)) {
>         ....
>         if (!pss->block) {
>             ....
>             if (migrate_use_xbzrle()) {
>                 rs->xbzrle_enabled = true;
>             }
>         }
>         ...
>     } else {
>         /* We've found something */
>         return PAGE_DIRTY_FOUND;
>     }
> }
> 
> 
> 
> > IIUC save_xbzrle_page will add pages into the cache on
> > the first iteration, so the second iteration will get
> > cache hits
> >
> >> - 2nd iteration: pages are put into cache, no xbzrle is used because
> >>   there is no previous page.
> >> - 3rd iteration: We really use xbzrle now against the copy of the
> >>   previous iterations.
> >> 
> >> And yes, this should be commented somewhere.
> 
> Seeing that it has been able to confuse you, a single comment will not
> make the trick O:-)
> 
> Later, Juan.
> 

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|