Re: [Qemu-devel] migration: broken ram_save_pending

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Alexey Kardashevskiy (address@hidden) wrote:
> On 02/06/2014 10:24 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Alexey Kardashevskiy (address@hidden) wrote:
> >> On 02/06/2014 03:45 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>> Il 05/02/2014 17:42, Dr. David Alan Gilbert ha scritto:
> >>>> Because:
> >>>>     * the code is still running and keeps redirtying a small handful of
> >>>> pages
> >>>>     * but because we've underestimated our available bandwidth we never 
> >>>> stop
> >>>>       it and just throw those pages across immediately
> >>>
> >>> Ok, I thought Alexey was saying we are not redirtying that handful of 
> >>> pages.
> >>
> >>
> >> Every iteration we read the dirty map from KVM and send all dirty pages
> >> across the stream.
> >>
> >>
> >>> And in turn, this is because the max downtime we have is too low
> >>> (especially for the default 32 MB/sec default bandwidth; that's also 
> >>> pretty
> >>> low).
> >>
> >>
> >> My understanding nooow is that in order to finish migration QEMU waits for
> >> the earliest 100ms (BUFFER_DELAY) of continuously low trafic but due to
> >> those pages getting dirty every time we read the dirty map, we transfer
> >> more in these 100ms than we are actually allowed (>32MB/s or 320KB/100ms).
> >> So we transfer-transfer-transfer, detect than we transfer too much, do
> >> delay() and if max_size (calculated from actual transfer and downtime) for
> >> the next iteration is less (by luck) than those 96 pages (uncompressed) -
> >> we finish.
> > 
> > How about turning on some of the debug in migration.c; I suggest not all of
> > it, but how about the :
> > 
> >             DPRINTF("transferred %" PRIu64 " time_spent %" PRIu64
> >                     " bandwidth %g max_size %" PRId64 "\n",
> >                     transferred_bytes, time_spent, bandwidth, max_size);
> > 
> > and also the s->dirty_bytes_rate value.  It would help check our 
> > assumptions.
> 
> 
> It is always zero.
> 
> 
> >> Increasing speed or/and downtime will help but still - we would not need
> >> that if migration did not expect all 96 pages to have to be sent but did
> >> have some smart way to detect that many are empty (so - compressed).
> > 
> > I think the other way would be to keep track of the compression ratio;
> > if we knew how many pages we'd sent, and how much bandwidth that had used,
> > we could divide the pending_bytes by that to get a *different* 
> > approximation.
> > 
> > However, the problem is that my understanding is we're trying to 
> > _gurantee_ a maximum downtime, and to do that we have to use the calculation
> > that assumes that all the pages we have are going to take the maximum time
> > to transfer, and only go into downtime then.
> > 
> >> Literally, move is_zero_range() from ram_save_block() to
> >> migration_bitmap_sync() and store this bit in some new pages_zero_map, for
> >> example. But does it make a lot of sense?
> > 
> > The problem is that means checking whether it's zero more often; at the 
> > moment
> > we check it's zero once during sending; to do what you're suggesting would
> > mean we'd have to check every page is zero, every time we sync, and I think
> > that's more often than we send.
> > 
> > Have you tried disabling the call to is_zero_range in arch_init.c's 
> > ram_block
> > so that (as long as you have XBZRLE off) we don't do any compression; if 
> > the theory is right then your problem should go away.
> 
> That was what I did first :)

Oh ok, then my theory on it is toast.

Dave
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK