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 BD805C433FE for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2022 11:22:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:39450 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1og2U0-0005pm-F9 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 07:22:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47602) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1og2Pk-0004Ou-RA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 07:18:12 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]:30467) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1og2Ph-0001pM-65 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 07:18:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1664968687; 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=iwY7N+w/KOiaO8WIFErS8C+pp6QxQKRk5OJVTadKBLI=; b=jQ3qdHPhOn2mcT3bubgBkjzo/feCt4LYNk7Ps6AtjwbgdEkjaN1fnLPu+sxkhaHtdgiQY4 wmOq6jqASFyqAnjaD+hy5z70SRp9gSIZ+kTNW4MkvV3nW5+paocvP0HcbB/+D9iEHohWUw YR4lt25MMzETrcU0PvWs5LEHrdob/r4= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-609-FqMWM54nNsOn0d9yJw9cRw-1; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 07:18:04 -0400 X-MC-Unique: FqMWM54nNsOn0d9yJw9cRw-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id k38-20020a05600c1ca600b003b49a809168so798138wms.5 for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 04:18:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=user-agent: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=iwY7N+w/KOiaO8WIFErS8C+pp6QxQKRk5OJVTadKBLI=; b=walc7qdwRCgXNI2Gs5EXnnKxSEoaDRpD72TclCyrbAvSS6EYdot6nblyQ6reKJofzl 2YBMq8adXTpLbdzXGGry3+oxrmICv8qXNQ5gwAlh/2ZNeqWmQe5tUfcytpqDW1HcA3lG 06CAzDkJUEdjeLrzthID9L5pfzri7wkR1TbDJpYfjSU4A1JlI3FD845G6+XVholAwwnF eDYR13jUObSuHLF5QTXgylwp1al4lKVOGG20fqg1AXqEXtRVn+Ns6A3osmiJUKhe6ujJ 4+yuqyYJeBv+1vMVxnJ5UiJrFMXWSSLv5WoXGPg9LgbFuKPUOFFN1Jw0dajp6Ocq+yKC eMSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3bhZ7eiB0/WL4MykVJbmUZoFQT/i7XtrKkEtSoZ2i6aXXYQTpM wvqAuuhEJoPonluv+sumx9twDgGLeCkGCYU0b3ZPT0oSO1cid4L6S2LgNvhR84Lo+YSb0+BsjzF BhgevP3N+Y+s+kgU= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6504:0:b0:22e:44b0:4cf5 with SMTP id x4-20020a5d6504000000b0022e44b04cf5mr7597389wru.362.1664968683648; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 04:18:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5HToWDPZ/Mvmy6qcJuR9zyhF30qYZQULJoH3Vi6zV94keRZ6YwdPeb9AhU8oO26CCv2L2bYw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6504:0:b0:22e:44b0:4cf5 with SMTP id x4-20020a5d6504000000b0022e44b04cf5mr7597365wru.362.1664968683331; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 04:18:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from work-vm (cpc109025-salf6-2-0-cust480.10-2.cable.virginm.net. [82.30.61.225]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j29-20020adfa55d000000b00228d6bc8450sm18982565wrb.108.2022.10.05.04.18.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 05 Oct 2022 04:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 12:18:00 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" To: Peter Xu 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.7 (2022-08-07) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=dgilbert@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" * Peter Xu (peterx@redhat.com) wrote: > 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! :) I'm not sure 'drop' is much better either; I was struggling to find a good nam. > > > > > 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. OK, that reason needs commenting then - you're going to do a lot of release/take pairs in that case which is going to show up as very hot; so hmm, if ti was just for that type of 'yield' behaviour you wouldn't normally do it for each bit. > > > > > > > /* 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. Dave > -- > Peter Xu > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK