qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/4] multifd: wait for channels_ready before sending sync


From: Fabiano Rosas
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] multifd: wait for channels_ready before sending sync
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 13:06:53 -0300

Elena Ufimtseva <elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com> writes:

> In multifd_send_sync_main we need to wait for channels_ready
> before submitting sync packet as the threads may still be sending
> their previous pages.
> There is also no need to check for channels_ready in the loop
> before the wait for sem_sync, next iteration of sending pages
> or another sync will start with waiting for channels_ready
> semaphore.
> Changes to commit 90b3cec351996dd8ef4eb847ad38607812c5e7f5
> ("multifd: Fix the number of channels ready")
>
> Signed-off-by: Elena Ufimtseva <elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com>
> ---
>  migration/multifd.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/multifd.c b/migration/multifd.c
> index 0f6b203877..e61e458151 100644
> --- a/migration/multifd.c
> +++ b/migration/multifd.c
> @@ -595,6 +595,7 @@ int multifd_send_sync_main(QEMUFile *f)
>          }
>      }
>  
> +    qemu_sem_wait(&multifd_send_state->channels_ready);
>      /*
>       * When using zero-copy, it's necessary to flush the pages before any of
>       * the pages can be sent again, so we'll make sure the new version of the
> @@ -630,7 +631,6 @@ int multifd_send_sync_main(QEMUFile *f)
>      for (i = 0; i < migrate_multifd_channels(); i++) {
>          MultiFDSendParams *p = &multifd_send_state->params[i];
>  
> -        qemu_sem_wait(&multifd_send_state->channels_ready);
>          trace_multifd_send_sync_main_wait(p->id);
>          qemu_sem_wait(&p->sem_sync);

Please take a look at the series I just sent. Basically, I think we
should wait on 'sem' for the number of existing channels and not just
once per sync. Otherwise I think we'd hit the same issue this patch is
trying to fix when we loop into the n+1 channels. I think the
assert(!p->pending_job) in patch 3 helps prove that's more appropriate.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]