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 9A8C7C433F5 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2022 13:52:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:37226 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1og4pD-0003pf-6j for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 09:52:39 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53110) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1og4dz-0004Ab-FC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 09:41:03 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:51159) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1og4dw-0007JY-Tb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 09:41:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1664977259; 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=CglflOJvLY03vvs+xvhWYiqLorwjqEe+RepI6FHopfc=; b=gcPQbOj78PRqcE3QVvRRMneUs34KrhwZsevE1Do4SF3W8OOAE5cJUU2lXD7GO135wowKzr yppvupJZhZ5fCYlnZRJYKCWwNc+saAfuvQV1V6BRF1s+nWnDzNOQznjiMJuxjJwEyyBVtn wxgP0zGYOV2Rc8brR5lvrAJeGDqZjMo= Received: from mail-qt1-f197.google.com (mail-qt1-f197.google.com [209.85.160.197]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-252-tXWEZHYrPNSaN6rsR7rHPA-1; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 09:40:56 -0400 X-MC-Unique: tXWEZHYrPNSaN6rsR7rHPA-1 Received: by mail-qt1-f197.google.com with SMTP id fy20-20020a05622a5a1400b0035bef08641dso11252467qtb.18 for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 06:40:56 -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=CglflOJvLY03vvs+xvhWYiqLorwjqEe+RepI6FHopfc=; b=d1lKHP9gAUdtb94Apywd2KBmfYB+XGj6EOqttz9KFekY8BHYCKqpHXA/u82n4eh2Gx G3ni9cXMC2iv8ac06y+viQElvOl6Zl4EBFbxOoDAl17gLMH8LUuZi8Z2RnKD337Vv+YN fw+3PT9DqhOp3Is2GZI6tyCFuZGlkv6gNfIWUbZ3hrkFqvGfwpSvmOdPE8zzW6qgCjo7 oNYVNhzajgd66oYJXmYXiEd9VRIP5hP672vXMWkQnr9KuEsv/veJ+cM5p8Wsco+irUri zAJ0jJ6OJmZH+FuEWD+h30jDWjl4GrjisZu6Yfwa2MP/uLnqVwXMGkPlj+4mPn9hXZVM mzpw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3hPyUPc7X9ks3X6kQAHyPyS4Mc28QO1oGaHq7XRPlYynoLh92d drbBODoOdeHdyqv6Ln01CNG+UPTTgB8+0G7FEHdGSqwTCUEWp2NcrzeTJwMKZvmGN8tsDQEOAm2 zXnfhxKqWdi3Tp3s= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7c4c:0:b0:35c:fa89:5a30 with SMTP id o12-20020ac87c4c000000b0035cfa895a30mr23742989qtv.359.1664977255728; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 06:40:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7qUCcWz6/of6Xn01+lbU0JI4764TzNuIwEuREK56J/+NlSxShm9a86PZhvhNMEvAKZX3AHiw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7c4c:0:b0:35c:fa89:5a30 with SMTP id o12-20020ac87c4c000000b0035cfa895a30mr23742974qtv.359.1664977255468; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 06:40:55 -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 d19-20020a05620a241300b006ce9e880c6fsm17322703qkn.111.2022.10.05.06.40.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 05 Oct 2022 06:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 09:40:53 -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=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=peterx@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 12:18:00PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * 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. I can also call it "preempt_enabled". Actually I can directly replace it with calling postcopy_preempt_active() always but I just want to make it crystal clear that the value is not changing and lock & unlock are always paired - in our case I think it is not changing, but the var helps to be 100% sure there'll be no possible bug on e.g. deadlock caused by state changing. > > > > > > > > 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. Hold on.. I think my assumption won't easily trigger, because at the end of the loop we'll try to look for the next "dirty" page. So continuously clean pages are unlikely, or I even think it's impossible because we're holding the mutex during scanning and clear-dirty, so no one will be able to flip the bit. So yeah I think it's okay to move it into "page_dirty", but since we'll mostly always go into dirty maybe it's just that it won't help a lot either, because it'll be mostly the same as keeping it outside? -- Peter Xu