diff mbox series

[v3,09/10] migration/dirtyrate: Implement calculate_dirtyrate() function

Message ID 1597634433-18809-10-git-send-email-zhengchuan@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series *** A Method for evaluating dirty page rate *** | expand

Commit Message

Zheng Chuan Aug. 17, 2020, 3:20 a.m. UTC
Implement calculate_dirtyrate() function.

Signed-off-by: Chuan Zheng <zhengchuan@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: YanYing Zhuang <ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com>
---
 migration/dirtyrate.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Dr. David Alan Gilbert Aug. 20, 2020, 5:57 p.m. UTC | #1
* Chuan Zheng (zhengchuan@huawei.com) wrote:
> Implement calculate_dirtyrate() function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chuan Zheng <zhengchuan@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: YanYing Zhuang <ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com>
> ---
>  migration/dirtyrate.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/migration/dirtyrate.c b/migration/dirtyrate.c
> index 4bbfcc3..041d0c6 100644
> --- a/migration/dirtyrate.c
> +++ b/migration/dirtyrate.c
> @@ -184,6 +184,21 @@ static void get_ramblock_dirty_info(RAMBlock *block,
>      strcpy(info->idstr, qemu_ram_get_idstr(block));
>  }
>  
> +static void free_ramblock_dirty_info(struct RamblockDirtyInfo *infos, int count)
> +{
> +    int i;
> +
> +    if (!infos) {
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
> +    for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> +        g_free(infos[i].sample_page_vfn);
> +        g_free(infos[i].hash_result);
> +    }
> +    g_free(infos);
> +}
> +
>  static struct RamblockDirtyInfo *
>  alloc_ramblock_dirty_info(int *block_index,
>                            struct RamblockDirtyInfo *block_dinfo)
> @@ -341,8 +356,35 @@ static int compare_page_hash_info(struct RamblockDirtyInfo *info,
>  
>  static void calculate_dirtyrate(struct DirtyRateConfig config)
>  {
> -    /* todo */
> -    return;
> +    struct RamblockDirtyInfo *block_dinfo = NULL;
> +    int block_index = 0;
> +    int64_t msec = 0;
> +    int64_t initial_time;
> +
> +    rcu_register_thread();
> +    reset_dirtyrate_stat();
> +    initial_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
> +    rcu_read_lock();
> +    if (record_ramblock_hash_info(&block_dinfo, config, &block_index) < 0) {
> +        goto out;
> +    }
> +    rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +    msec = config.sample_period_seconds * 1000;
> +    msec = set_sample_page_period(msec, initial_time);
> +
> +    rcu_read_lock();
> +    if (compare_page_hash_info(block_dinfo, block_index) < 0) {
> +        goto out;
> +    }
> +
> +    update_dirtyrate(msec);

I think this is OK, so:

Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>

However, please try the following test,  set it to 60 seconds,
start the dirty rate check, and in that time, shut the guest down
(e.g. shutdown -h now in the guest) - what happens?

Dave

> +
> +out:
> +    rcu_read_unlock();
> +    free_ramblock_dirty_info(block_dinfo, block_index + 1);
> +    rcu_unregister_thread();
> +
>  }
>  
>  void *get_dirtyrate_thread(void *arg)
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
>
Zheng Chuan Aug. 21, 2020, 9:59 a.m. UTC | #2
On 2020/8/21 1:57, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Chuan Zheng (zhengchuan@huawei.com) wrote:
>> Implement calculate_dirtyrate() function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chuan Zheng <zhengchuan@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: YanYing Zhuang <ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  migration/dirtyrate.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/migration/dirtyrate.c b/migration/dirtyrate.c
>> index 4bbfcc3..041d0c6 100644
>> --- a/migration/dirtyrate.c
>> +++ b/migration/dirtyrate.c
>> @@ -184,6 +184,21 @@ static void get_ramblock_dirty_info(RAMBlock *block,
>>      strcpy(info->idstr, qemu_ram_get_idstr(block));
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void free_ramblock_dirty_info(struct RamblockDirtyInfo *infos, int count)
>> +{
>> +    int i;
>> +
>> +    if (!infos) {
>> +        return;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>> +        g_free(infos[i].sample_page_vfn);
>> +        g_free(infos[i].hash_result);
>> +    }
>> +    g_free(infos);
>> +}
>> +
>>  static struct RamblockDirtyInfo *
>>  alloc_ramblock_dirty_info(int *block_index,
>>                            struct RamblockDirtyInfo *block_dinfo)
>> @@ -341,8 +356,35 @@ static int compare_page_hash_info(struct RamblockDirtyInfo *info,
>>  
>>  static void calculate_dirtyrate(struct DirtyRateConfig config)
>>  {
>> -    /* todo */
>> -    return;
>> +    struct RamblockDirtyInfo *block_dinfo = NULL;
>> +    int block_index = 0;
>> +    int64_t msec = 0;
>> +    int64_t initial_time;
>> +
>> +    rcu_register_thread();
>> +    reset_dirtyrate_stat();
>> +    initial_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
>> +    rcu_read_lock();
>> +    if (record_ramblock_hash_info(&block_dinfo, config, &block_index) < 0) {
>> +        goto out;
>> +    }
>> +    rcu_read_unlock();
>> +
>> +    msec = config.sample_period_seconds * 1000;
>> +    msec = set_sample_page_period(msec, initial_time);
>> +
>> +    rcu_read_lock();
>> +    if (compare_page_hash_info(block_dinfo, block_index) < 0) {
>> +        goto out;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    update_dirtyrate(msec);
> 
> I think this is OK, so:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> 
> However, please try the following test,  set it to 60 seconds,
> start the dirty rate check, and in that time, shut the guest down
> (e.g. shutdown -h now in the guest) - what happens?
> 
> Dave
> 
It is ok when shutdown corcurrent with query dirtyrate, the get_dirtyrate
thread is terminated by qemu.

>> +
>> +out:
>> +    rcu_read_unlock();
>> +    free_ramblock_dirty_info(block_dinfo, block_index + 1);
>> +    rcu_unregister_thread();
>> +
>>  }
>>  
>>  void *get_dirtyrate_thread(void *arg)
>> -- 
>> 1.8.3.1
>>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/migration/dirtyrate.c b/migration/dirtyrate.c
index 4bbfcc3..041d0c6 100644
--- a/migration/dirtyrate.c
+++ b/migration/dirtyrate.c
@@ -184,6 +184,21 @@  static void get_ramblock_dirty_info(RAMBlock *block,
     strcpy(info->idstr, qemu_ram_get_idstr(block));
 }
 
+static void free_ramblock_dirty_info(struct RamblockDirtyInfo *infos, int count)
+{
+    int i;
+
+    if (!infos) {
+        return;
+    }
+
+    for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+        g_free(infos[i].sample_page_vfn);
+        g_free(infos[i].hash_result);
+    }
+    g_free(infos);
+}
+
 static struct RamblockDirtyInfo *
 alloc_ramblock_dirty_info(int *block_index,
                           struct RamblockDirtyInfo *block_dinfo)
@@ -341,8 +356,35 @@  static int compare_page_hash_info(struct RamblockDirtyInfo *info,
 
 static void calculate_dirtyrate(struct DirtyRateConfig config)
 {
-    /* todo */
-    return;
+    struct RamblockDirtyInfo *block_dinfo = NULL;
+    int block_index = 0;
+    int64_t msec = 0;
+    int64_t initial_time;
+
+    rcu_register_thread();
+    reset_dirtyrate_stat();
+    initial_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
+    rcu_read_lock();
+    if (record_ramblock_hash_info(&block_dinfo, config, &block_index) < 0) {
+        goto out;
+    }
+    rcu_read_unlock();
+
+    msec = config.sample_period_seconds * 1000;
+    msec = set_sample_page_period(msec, initial_time);
+
+    rcu_read_lock();
+    if (compare_page_hash_info(block_dinfo, block_index) < 0) {
+        goto out;
+    }
+
+    update_dirtyrate(msec);
+
+out:
+    rcu_read_unlock();
+    free_ramblock_dirty_info(block_dinfo, block_index + 1);
+    rcu_unregister_thread();
+
 }
 
 void *get_dirtyrate_thread(void *arg)