On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:40:58PM +0300, Alexey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 06:17:40PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 05:50:27AM -0400, Alexey Perevalov wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -60,6 +62,14 @@ static inline void *ramblock_ptr(RAMBlock *block,
> > > ram_addr_t offset)
> > > return (char *)block->host + offset;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static inline unsigned long int ramblock_recv_bitmap_offset(void
> > > *host_addr,
> > > + RAMBlock *rb)
> > > +{
> > > + uint64_t host_addr_offset =
> > > + (uint64_t)(uintptr_t)(host_addr - (void *)rb->host);
> > > + return host_addr_offset >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > long qemu_getrampagesize(void);
> > > unsigned long last_ram_page(void);
> > > RAMBlock *qemu_ram_alloc_from_file(ram_addr_t size, MemoryRegion *mr,
> > > diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
> > > index 71e38bc..53fbd41 100644
> > > --- a/migration/migration.c
> > > +++ b/migration/migration.c
> > > @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ MigrationIncomingState
> > > *migration_incoming_get_current(void)
> > > qemu_mutex_init(&mis_current.rp_mutex);
> > > qemu_event_init(&mis_current.main_thread_load_event, false);
> > > once = true;
> > > + ramblock_recv_map_init();
> >
> > One tiny more comment: shall we init this at the beginning of incoming
> > migration? Maybe into migration_fd_process_incoming(), before entering
> > the coroutine?
> maybe this function (migration_incoming_get_current) is not best place
> to initialize something in ramblock list from point of
> view maintainability.
Yes, the point is, it is only inited once per QEMU instance, while
actually it should be inited for each incoming migration procedure
(though I think yes we will normally have one incoming migration per
QEMU instance...).
> >
> > Then, for the destruction of it below...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -2324,8 +2352,14 @@ static int ram_load_setup(QEMUFile *f, void
> > > *opaque)
> > >
> > > static int ram_load_cleanup(void *opaque)
> > > {
> > > + RAMBlock *rb;
> > > xbzrle_load_cleanup();
> > > compress_threads_load_cleanup();
> > > +
> > > + RAMBLOCK_FOREACH(rb) {
> > > + g_free(rb->receivedmap);
> > > + rb->receivedmap = NULL;
> > > + }
> >
> > ... maybe move to migration_incoming_state_destroy()?
> I'll think about it, because ram_load_cleanup in current Juan's
> patch set is not calling in postcopy scenario.
Sure.
>
> >
> > And, I didn't really find ram_load_cleanup() in my repo. Am I missing
> > something?
> you need Juan's [PATCH v2 0/5] Create setup/cleanup methods for
> migration incoming side
Ok. Then no problem. Thanks,
>
> >
> > Other than above, this patch looks good to me. Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Peter Xu
> >
>
> --
>
> BR
> Alexey
--
Peter Xu
