"Li, Liang Z" <liang.z...@intel.com> wrote:
>> >> > Right now, we don't have an interface to detect that cases and got
>> >> > back to the iterative stage.
>> >>
>> >> How about go back to the iterative stage when detect that the
>> >> pending_size is larger Than max_size, like this:
>> >>
>> >> + /* do flush here is aimed to shorten the VM downtime,
>> >> + * bdrv_flush_all is a time consuming operation
>> >> + * when the guest has done some file writing */
>> >> + bdrv_flush_all();
>> >> + pending_size = qemu_savevm_state_pending(s->file,
>> >> max_size);
>> >> + if (pending_size && pending_size >= max_size) {
>> >> + qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
>> >> + continue;
>> >> + }
>> >> ret = vm_stop_force_state(RUN_STATE_FINISH_MIGRATE);
>> >> if (ret >= 0) {
>> >> qemu_file_set_rate_limit(s->file, INT64_MAX);
>> >>
>> >> and this is quite simple.
>> >
>> > Yes, but it is too simple. If you hold all the locks during
>> > bdrv_flush_all(), your VM will effectively stop as soon as it performs
>> > the next I/O access, so you don't win much. And you still don't have a
>> > timeout for cases where the flush takes really long.
>>
>> This is probably better than what we had now (basically we are "meassuring"
>> after bdrv_flush_all how much the amount of dirty memory has changed,
>> and return to iterative stage if it took too much. A timeout would be better
>> anyways. And an interface te start the synchronization sooner
>> asynchronously would be also good.
>>
>> Notice that my understanding is that any proper fix for this is 2.4 material.
>
> Then, how to deal with this issue in 2.3, leave it here? or make an
> incomplete fix like I do above?
I think it is better to leave it here for 2.3. With a patch like this
one, we improve in one load and we got worse in a different load (depens
a lot in the ratio of dirtying memory vs disk). I have no data which
load is more common, so I prefer to be conservative so late in the
cycle. What do you think?
Later, Juan.
>
> Liang
>
>> Thanks, Juan.
