From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: Juan Quintela <quintela@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: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:35:02 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZTE+lmbvtYNDU80q@x1n> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87sf676kxt.fsf@secure.mitica>
Fabiano,
Sorry to look at this series late; I messed up my inbox after I reworked my
arrangement methodology of emails. ;)
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 11:06:06AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de> wrote:
> > The channels_ready semaphore is a global variable not linked to any
> > single multifd channel. Waiting on it only means that "some" channel
> > has become ready to send data. Since we need to address the channels
> > by index (multifd_send_state->params[i]), that information adds
> > nothing of value.
>
> NAK.
>
> I disagree here O:-)
>
> the reason why that channel exist is for multifd_send_pages()
>
> And simplifying the function what it does is:
>
> sem_wait(channels_ready);
>
> for_each_channel()
> look if it is empty()
>
> But with the semaphore, we guarantee that when we go to the loop, there
> is a channel ready, so we know we donat busy wait searching for a
> channel that is free.
>
> Notice that I fully agree that the sem is not needed for locking.
> Locking is done with the mutex. It is just used to make sure that we
> don't busy loop on that loop.
>
> And we use a sem, because it is the easiest way to know how many
> channels are ready (even when we only care if there is one when we
> arrive to that code).
>
> We lost count of that counter, and we fixed that here:
>
> commit d2026ee117147893f8d80f060cede6d872ecbd7f
> Author: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
> Date: Wed Apr 26 12:20:36 2023 +0200
>
> multifd: Fix the number of channels ready
>
> We don't wait in the sem when we are doing a sync_main. Make it
>
> And we were addressing the problem that some users where finding that we
> were busy waiting on that loop.
Juan,
I can understand why send_pages needs that sem, but not when sync main.
IOW, why multifd_send_sync_main() needs:
qemu_sem_wait(&multifd_send_state->channels_ready);
If it has:
qemu_sem_wait(&p->sem_sync);
How does a busy loop happen?
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-19 14:37 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 [this message]
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
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=ZTE+lmbvtYNDU80q@x1n \
--to=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com \
--cc=farosas@suse.de \
--cc=leobras@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=quintela@redhat.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).