| Message ID | 1598260480-64862-11-git-send-email-zhengchuan@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | *** A Method for evaluating dirty page rate *** | expand |
On Monday, 2020-08-24 at 17:14:38 +08, Chuan Zheng 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 | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/migration/dirtyrate.c b/migration/dirtyrate.c > index d1c0a78..9f52f5f 100644 > --- a/migration/dirtyrate.c > +++ b/migration/dirtyrate.c > @@ -171,6 +171,21 @@ 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) > @@ -316,8 +331,34 @@ 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(); Page dirtying that happens while acquiring the lock will not be accounted for, but is within the time window. Could we store the time after acquiring the 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(); Is it necessary to hold the lock across update_dirtyrate()? > + free_ramblock_dirty_info(block_dinfo, block_index + 1); > + rcu_unregister_thread(); > } > > void *get_dirtyrate_thread(void *arg) > -- > 1.8.3.1 dme.
On 2020/8/26 18:21, David Edmondson wrote: > On Monday, 2020-08-24 at 17:14:38 +08, Chuan Zheng 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 | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/migration/dirtyrate.c b/migration/dirtyrate.c >> index d1c0a78..9f52f5f 100644 >> --- a/migration/dirtyrate.c >> +++ b/migration/dirtyrate.c >> @@ -171,6 +171,21 @@ 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) >> @@ -316,8 +331,34 @@ 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(); > > Page dirtying that happens while acquiring the lock will not be > accounted for, but is within the time window. Could we store the time > after acquiring the lock? > Yes, it would be better. will fix in V6. >> + 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(); > > Is it necessary to hold the lock across update_dirtyrate()? > There is no need for that. Will fix it in V6. >> + free_ramblock_dirty_info(block_dinfo, block_index + 1); >> + rcu_unregister_thread(); >> } >> >> void *get_dirtyrate_thread(void *arg) >> -- >> 1.8.3.1 > > dme. >
diff --git a/migration/dirtyrate.c b/migration/dirtyrate.c index d1c0a78..9f52f5f 100644 --- a/migration/dirtyrate.c +++ b/migration/dirtyrate.c @@ -171,6 +171,21 @@ 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) @@ -316,8 +331,34 @@ 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)