[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_d
From: |
Lukas Straub |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty() |
Date: |
Sat, 3 Jul 2021 18:31:15 +0200 |
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 16:08:05 -0400
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> Taking the mutex every time for each dirty bit to clear is too slow,
> especially
> we'll take/release even if the dirty bit is cleared. So far it's only used to
> sync with special cases with qemu_guest_free_page_hint() against migration
> thread, nothing really that serious yet. Let's move the lock to be upper.
>
> There're two callers of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty().
>
> For migration, move it into ram_save_iterate(). With the help of MAX_WAIT
> logic, we'll only run ram_save_iterate() for no more than 50ms-ish time, so
> taking the lock once there at the entry. It also means any call sites to
> qemu_guest_free_page_hint() can be delayed; but it should be very rare, only
> during migration, and I don't see a problem with it.
>
> For COLO, move it up to colo_flush_ram_cache(). I think COLO forgot to take
> that lock even when calling ramblock_sync_dirty_bitmap(), where another
> example
> is migration_bitmap_sync() who took it right. So let the mutex cover both the
> ramblock_sync_dirty_bitmap() and migration_bitmap_clear_dirty() calls.
Hi,
I don't think COLO needs it, colo_flush_ram_cache() only runs on
the secondary (incoming) side and AFAIK the bitmap is only set in
ram_load_precopy() and they don't run in parallel.
Although I'm not sure what ramblock_sync_dirty_bitmap() does. I guess
it's only there to make the rest of the migration code happy?
Regards,
Lukas Straub
> It's even possible to drop the lock so we use atomic operations upon rb->bmap
> and the variable migration_dirty_pages. I didn't do it just to still be safe,
> also not predictable whether the frequent atomic ops could bring overhead too
> e.g. on huge vms when it happens very often. When that really comes, we can
> keep a local counter and periodically call atomic ops. Keep it simple for
> now.
>
> Cc: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Cc: Hailiang Zhang <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
> Cc: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> Cc: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
> Cc: Leonardo Bras Soares Passos <lsoaresp@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> ---
> migration/ram.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
> index 723af67c2e..9f2965675d 100644
> --- a/migration/ram.c
> +++ b/migration/ram.c
> @@ -795,8 +795,6 @@ static inline bool migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(RAMState
> *rs,
> {
> bool ret;
>
> - QEMU_LOCK_GUARD(&rs->bitmap_mutex);
> -
> /*
> * Clear dirty bitmap if needed. This _must_ be called before we
> * send any of the page in the chunk because we need to make sure
> @@ -2834,6 +2832,14 @@ static int ram_save_iterate(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque)
> goto out;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * We'll take this lock a little bit long, but it's okay for two reasons.
> + * Firstly, the only possible other thread to take it is who calls
> + * qemu_guest_free_page_hint(), which should be rare; secondly, see
> + * MAX_WAIT (if curious, further see commit 4508bd9ed8053ce) below, which
> + * guarantees that we'll at least released it in a regular basis.
> + */
> + qemu_mutex_lock(&rs->bitmap_mutex);
> WITH_RCU_READ_LOCK_GUARD() {
> if (ram_list.version != rs->last_version) {
> ram_state_reset(rs);
> @@ -2893,6 +2899,7 @@ static int ram_save_iterate(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque)
> i++;
> }
> }
> + qemu_mutex_unlock(&rs->bitmap_mutex);
>
> /*
> * Must occur before EOS (or any QEMUFile operation)
> @@ -3682,6 +3689,7 @@ void colo_flush_ram_cache(void)
> unsigned long offset = 0;
>
> memory_global_dirty_log_sync();
> + qemu_mutex_lock(&ram_state->bitmap_mutex);
> WITH_RCU_READ_LOCK_GUARD() {
> RAMBLOCK_FOREACH_NOT_IGNORED(block) {
> ramblock_sync_dirty_bitmap(ram_state, block);
> @@ -3710,6 +3718,7 @@ void colo_flush_ram_cache(void)
> }
> }
> trace_colo_flush_ram_cache_end();
> + qemu_mutex_unlock(&ram_state->bitmap_mutex);
> }
>
> /**
--
pgpwKcP9wDbSO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(), (continued)
- RE: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(), Wang, Wei W, 2021/07/01
- Re: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(), Peter Xu, 2021/07/06
- RE: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(), Wang, Wei W, 2021/07/07
- Re: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(), Peter Xu, 2021/07/07
- RE: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(), Wang, Wei W, 2021/07/07
- Re: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(), Peter Xu, 2021/07/08
- RE: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(), Wang, Wei W, 2021/07/09
- Re: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(), Peter Xu, 2021/07/09
- RE: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(), Wang, Wei W, 2021/07/13
Re: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(),
Lukas Straub <=
RE: [PATCH] migration: Move bitmap_mutex out of migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(), Wang, Wei W, 2021/07/13