fix migration with large mem
PATCH 1/1 fix migration with large mem
From f881b371e08760a67bf1f5b992a586c3de600f7a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Izik Eidus <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:24:57 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] fix migration with large mem
In cases of guests with large mem that have pages that all their bytes content are the same, we will spend alot of time reading the memory from the guest (is_dup_page())
It is happening beacuse ram_save_live() function have limit of how much we can send to the dest but not how much we read from it, and in cases we have many is_dup_page() hits, we might read huge amount of data without updating important stuff like the timers...
The guest lose all its repsonsibility and have many softlock ups inside itself.
this patch add limit on the size we can read from the guest each iteration.
Thanks.
--- arch_init.c | 6 +++++- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
arch_init.c +5 -1
@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@ const uint32_t arch_type = QEMU_ARCH;#define RAM_SAVE_FLAG_PAGE 0x08#define RAM_SAVE_FLAG_EOS 0x10 +#define MAX_SAVE_BLOCK_READ 10 * 1024 * 1024 +static int is_dup_page (uint8_t *page,uint8_t ch) {uint32_t val = ch <<24 | ch <<16 | ch <<8 | ch;
@@ -175,6 +177,7 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque)uint64_t bytes_transferred_last;double bwidth =0 ;uint64_t expected_time =0 ; +int data_read =0 ;if (stage <0 ) {cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty_tracking (0 );
@@ -205,10 +208,11 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque) bytes_transferred_last = bytes_transferred; bwidth =qemu_get_clock_ns (rt_clock); -while (!qemu_file_rate_limit (f)) { +while (!qemu_file_rate_limit (f) && data_read <MAX_SAVE_BLOCK_READ ) {int ret; ret =ram_save_block (f); + data_read += ret *TARGET_PAGE_SIZE ; bytes_transferred += ret *TARGET_PAGE_SIZE ;if (ret ==0 ) {/* no more blocks */ break ;
Signature · 1 line
1.6.6.1
Quoted 4 lines · On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:33:18 +0300 Izik Eidus <[email protected]> wrote:
From
f881b371e08760a67bf1f5b992a586c3de600f7aMon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Izik Eidus <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:24:57 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] fix migration with large mem
Anyone ???
Quoted 59 lines
In cases of guests with large mem that have pages that all their bytes content are the same, we will spend alot of time reading the memory from the guest (
is_dup_page())It is happening beacuse
ram_save_live()function have limit of how much we can send to the dest but not how much we read from it, and in cases we have manyis_dup_page()hits, we might read huge amount of data without updating important stuff like the timers...The guest lose all its repsonsibility and have many softlock ups inside itself.
this patch add limit on the size we can read from the guest each iteration.
Thanks.
Signed-off-by Izik Eidus <[email protected]>--- arch_init.c | 6 +++++- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)arch_init.c +5
-1@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@ const uint32_t arch_type = QEMU_ARCH;#define RAM_SAVE_FLAG_PAGE 0x08#define RAM_SAVE_FLAG_EOS 0x10 +#define MAX_SAVE_BLOCK_READ 10 * 1024 * 1024 +static int is_dup_page (uint8_t *page,uint8_t ch) {uint32_t val = ch <<24 | ch <<16 | ch <<8 | ch;@@ -175,6 +177,7 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque)uint64_t bytes_transferred_last;double bwidth =0 ;uint64_t expected_time =0 ; +int data_read =0 ;if (stage <0 ) {cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty_tracking (0 );@@ -205,10 +208,11 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque) bytes_transferred_last = bytes_transferred; bwidth =qemu_get_clock_ns (rt_clock); -while (!qemu_file_rate_limit (f)) { +while (!qemu_file_rate_limit (f) && data_read <MAX_SAVE_BLOCK_READ ) {int ret; ret =ram_save_block (f); + data_read += ret *TARGET_PAGE_SIZE ; bytes_transferred += ret *TARGET_PAGE_SIZE ;if (ret ==0 ) {/* no more blocks */ break ;
Paolo Bonzini
Acked-byQuoted 9 lines · Izik Eidus
Quoted 4 lines · On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:33:18 +0300 Izik Eidus<[email protected]> wrote:
From
f881b371e08760a67bf1f5b992a586c3de600f7aMon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Izik Eidus<[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:24:57 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] fix migration with large memAnyone ???
Maybe this could be merged via uq/master.
Paolo
Quoted 9 lines · Paolo Bonzini
Quoted 8 lines · Izik Eidus
Quoted 4 lines · On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:33:18 +0300 Izik Eidus<[email protected]> wrote:
From
f881b371e08760a67bf1f5b992a586c3de600f7aMon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Izik Eidus<[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:24:57 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] fix migration with large mem
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Anyone ???
Acked-by Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>Maybe this could be merged via uq/master.
It's not intrinsically kvm related.
Signature · 1 line
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
Quoted 51 lines · Izik Eidus
From
f881b371e08760a67bf1f5b992a586c3de600f7aMon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Izik Eidus<[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:24:57 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] fix migration with large memIn cases of guests with large mem that have pages that all their bytes content are the same, we will spend alot of time reading the memory from the guest (
is_dup_page())It is happening beacuse
ram_save_live()function have limit of how much we can send to the dest but not how much we read from it, and in cases we have manyis_dup_page()hits, we might read huge amount of data without updating important stuff like the timers...The guest lose all its repsonsibility and have many softlock ups inside itself.
this patch add limit on the size we can read from the guest each iteration.
Thanks.
Signed-off-by Izik Eidus<[email protected]>--- arch_init.c | 6 +++++- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)arch_init.c +3
-0@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@ const uint32_t arch_type = QEMU_ARCH;#define RAM_SAVE_FLAG_PAGE 0x08#define RAM_SAVE_FLAG_EOS 0x10 +#define MAX_SAVE_BLOCK_READ 10 * 1024 * 1024 +static int is_dup_page (uint8_t *page,uint8_t ch) {uint32_t val = ch<<24 | ch<<16 | ch<<8 | ch;@@ -175,6 +177,7 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque)uint64_t bytes_transferred_last;double bwidth =0 ;uint64_t expected_time =0 ; +int data_read =0 ;if (stage<0 ) {cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty_tracking (0 );
arch_init.c int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque) · line 212
Quoted 6 lines
arch_init.c +1
-1@@ -205,10 +208,11 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque) bytes_transferred_last = bytes_transferred; bwidth =qemu_get_clock_ns (rt_clock); -while (!qemu_file_rate_limit (f)) { +while (!qemu_file_rate_limit (f)&& data_read<MAX_SAVE_BLOCK_READ ) {
The effect of this patch is that we'll never send more than 10mb/s during live migration? If so, it's totally wrong as a fix to the problem.
It would be better to account the deduplicated pages as part of the rate limiting calculations.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Quoted 8 lines
arch_init.c +1
-0int ret; ret =ram_save_block (f); + data_read += ret *TARGET_PAGE_SIZE ; bytes_transferred += ret *TARGET_PAGE_SIZE ;if (ret ==0 ) {/* no more blocks */ break;
Quoted 55 lines · On Mon, 10 May 2010 15:24:20 -0500 Anthony Liguori <[email protected]>…
Quoted 54 lines · Izik Eidus
From
f881b371e08760a67bf1f5b992a586c3de600f7aMon Sep 17 00:00:00
2001 From: Izik Eidus<[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:24:57 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] fix migration with large memIn cases of guests with large mem that have pages that all their bytes content are the same, we will spend alot of time reading the memory from the guest (
is_dup_page())It is happening beacuse
ram_save_live()function have limit of how much we can send to the dest but not how much we read from it, and in cases we have manyis_dup_page()hits, we might read huge amount of data without updating important stuff like the timers...The guest lose all its repsonsibility and have many softlock ups inside itself.
this patch add limit on the size we can read from the guest each iteration.
Thanks.
Signed-off-by Izik Eidus<[email protected]>--- arch_init.c | 6 +++++- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)arch_init.c +3
-0@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@ const uint32_t arch_type = QEMU_ARCH;#define RAM_SAVE_FLAG_PAGE 0x08#define RAM_SAVE_FLAG_EOS 0x10 +#define MAX_SAVE_BLOCK_READ 10 * 1024 * 1024 +static int is_dup_page (uint8_t *page,uint8_t ch) {uint32_t val = ch<<24 | ch<<16 | ch<<8 | ch;@@ -175,6 +177,7 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque) uint64_t bytes_transferred_last;double bwidth =0 ;uint64_t expected_time =0 ; +int data_read =0 ;if (stage<0 ) {cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty_tracking (0 );@@ -205,10 +208,11 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque) bytes_transferred_last = bytes_transferred; bwidth =qemu_get_clock_ns (rt_clock);
Quoted 7 lines
arch_init.c int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, · line 212
Quoted 3 lines
arch_init.c +1
-1-while (!qemu_file_rate_limit (f)) { +while (!qemu_file_rate_limit (f)&& data_read<MAX_SAVE_BLOCK_READ ) {The effect of this patch is that we'll never send more than 10mb/s during live migration? If so, it's totally wrong as a fix to the problem.
It is 100mb/s... (if I remember correct the migration code will run this thing 10 times for each iteration)
My feeling is that limit it with the network 32mb/s limit is too low, reading memory for 100mb/s is not such a problem as long as we don`t read gigas out of memory every sec...
(Still we want to optimize the billion of zeros cases of windows guests)
Anyway if the above does not make sense to you, I will just change it into what you suggested
So ?
Quoted 17 lines
It would be better to account the deduplicated pages as part of the rate limiting calculations.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Quoted 8 lines
arch_init.c +1
-0int ret; ret =ram_save_block (f); + data_read += ret *TARGET_PAGE_SIZE ; bytes_transferred += ret *TARGET_PAGE_SIZE ;if (ret ==0 ) {/* no more blocks */ break;
Quoted 68 lines · Izik Eidus
Quoted 56 lines · On Mon, 10 May 2010 15:24:20 -0500 Anthony Liguori<[email protected]>…
Quoted 54 lines · Izik Eidus
From f881b371e08760a67bf1f5b992a586c3de600f7a Mon Sep 17 00:00:002001 From: Izik Eidus<[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:24:57 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] fix migration with large memIn cases of guests with large mem that have pages that all their bytes content are the same, we will spend alot of time reading the memory from the guest (
is_dup_page())It is happening beacuse
ram_save_live()function have limit of how much we can send to the dest but not how much we read from it, and in cases we have manyis_dup_page()hits, we might read huge amount of data without updating important stuff like the timers...The guest lose all its repsonsibility and have many softlock ups inside itself.
this patch add limit on the size we can read from the guest each iteration.
Thanks.
Signed-off-by Izik Eidus<[email protected]>--- arch_init.c | 6 +++++- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)arch_init.c +3
-0@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@ const uint32_t arch_type = QEMU_ARCH;#define RAM_SAVE_FLAG_PAGE 0x08#define RAM_SAVE_FLAG_EOS 0x10 +#define MAX_SAVE_BLOCK_READ 10 * 1024 * 1024 +static int is_dup_page (uint8_t *page,uint8_t ch) {uint32_t val = ch<<24 | ch<<16 | ch<<8 | ch;@@ -175,6 +177,7 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque) uint64_t bytes_transferred_last;double bwidth =0 ;uint64_t expected_time =0 ; +int data_read =0 ;if (stage<0 ) {cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty_tracking (0 );@@ -205,10 +208,11 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque) bytes_transferred_last = bytes_transferred; bwidth =qemu_get_clock_ns (rt_clock);Quoted 8 lines
arch_init.c int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque) · line 213
Quoted 4 lines
arch_init.c +1
-1-while (!qemu_file_rate_limit (f)) { +while (!qemu_file_rate_limit (f)&& data_read<MAX_SAVE_BLOCK_READ ) {The effect of this patch is that we'll never send more than 10mb/s during live migration? If so, it's totally wrong as a fix to the problem.
Quoted 3 lines
It is 100mb/s... (if I remember correct the migration code will run this thing 10 times for each iteration)
No, it only runs it once.
Quoted 4 lines
My feeling is that limit it with the network 32mb/s limit is too low, reading memory for 100mb/s is not such a problem as long as we don`t read gigas out of memory every sec...
You've limited bandwidth to 10 mb/sec. Even if it was 100 mb/sec a fixed limit is wrong. On a 10gbit (or 40gbit) link, 100 mb/sec is not enough.
Quoted 7 lines
(Still we want to optimize the billion of zeros cases of windows guests)
Anyway if the above does not make sense to you, I will just change it into what you suggested
So ?
That would work for me.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori