Re: [PATCH v2 16/29] migration/ram: Add support for 'fixed-ram' migration restore

[Fabiano Rosas]

Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 05:35:55PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
>> 
>> Add the necessary code to parse the format changes for the 'fixed-ram'
>> capability.
>> 
>> One of the more notable changes in behavior is that in the 'fixed-ram'
>> case ram pages are restored in one go rather than constantly looping
>> through the migration stream.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de>
>> ---
>> (farosas) reused more of the common code by making the fixed-ram
>> function take only one ramblock and calling it from inside
>> parse_ramblock.
>> ---
>>  migration/ram.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 93 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
>> index 152a03604f..cea6971ab2 100644
>> --- a/migration/ram.c
>> +++ b/migration/ram.c
>> @@ -3032,6 +3032,32 @@ static void fixed_ram_insert_header(QEMUFile *file, 
>> RAMBlock *block)
>>      qemu_put_buffer(file, (uint8_t *) header, header_size);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int fixed_ram_read_header(QEMUFile *file, struct FixedRamHeader 
>> *header)
>> +{
>> +    size_t ret, header_size = sizeof(struct FixedRamHeader);
>> +
>> +    ret = qemu_get_buffer(file, (uint8_t *)header, header_size);
>> +    if (ret != header_size) {
>> +        return -1;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    /* migration stream is big-endian */
>> +    be32_to_cpus(&header->version);
>> +
>> +    if (header->version > FIXED_RAM_HDR_VERSION) {
>> +        error_report("Migration fixed-ram capability version mismatch 
>> (expected %d, got %d)",
>> +                     FIXED_RAM_HDR_VERSION, header->version);
>
> I know it doesn't matter a lot for now, but it'll be good to start using
> Error** in new codes?

This whole series was written before the many discussions we had about
error handling. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll revise and change
where appropriate.

>> +        return -1;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    be64_to_cpus(&header->page_size);
>> +    be64_to_cpus(&header->bitmap_offset);
>> +    be64_to_cpus(&header->pages_offset);
>> +
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Each of ram_save_setup, ram_save_iterate and ram_save_complete has
>>   * long-running RCU critical section.  When rcu-reclaims in the code
>> @@ -3932,6 +3958,68 @@ void colo_flush_ram_cache(void)
>>      trace_colo_flush_ram_cache_end();
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void read_ramblock_fixed_ram(QEMUFile *f, RAMBlock *block,
>> +                                    long num_pages, unsigned long *bitmap)
>> +{
>> +    unsigned long set_bit_idx, clear_bit_idx;
>> +    unsigned long len;
>> +    ram_addr_t offset;
>> +    void *host;
>> +    size_t read, completed, read_len;
>> +
>> +    for (set_bit_idx = find_first_bit(bitmap, num_pages);
>> +         set_bit_idx < num_pages;
>> +         set_bit_idx = find_next_bit(bitmap, num_pages, clear_bit_idx + 1)) 
>> {
>> +
>> +        clear_bit_idx = find_next_zero_bit(bitmap, num_pages, set_bit_idx + 
>> 1);
>> +
>> +        len = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE * (clear_bit_idx - set_bit_idx);
>> +        offset = set_bit_idx << TARGET_PAGE_BITS;
>> +
>> +        for (read = 0, completed = 0; completed < len; offset += read) {
>> +            host = host_from_ram_block_offset(block, offset);
>> +            read_len = MIN(len, TARGET_PAGE_SIZE);
>
> Why MIN()?  I didn't read qemu_get_buffer_at() yet, but shouldn't len
> always be multiple of target page size or zero?
>

Hmm, this is not my code. The original code had MIN(len, BUFSIZE) with
BUFSIZE being defined at 4M. I think the idea might have been to cap the
amount of pages read.

So it seems I have made a mistake here and this could be reading more
pages at a time.