On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:12:34AM +0000, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Monday, 2021-12-20 at 16:53:54 +08, Peter Xu wrote:
>
> > The enablement of postcopy listening has a few steps, add a few tracepoints
> > to
> > be there ready for some basic measurements for them.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > migration/savevm.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > migration/trace-events | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/migration/savevm.c b/migration/savevm.c
> > index 7f7af6f750..25face6de0 100644
> > --- a/migration/savevm.c
> > +++ b/migration/savevm.c
> > @@ -1947,9 +1947,10 @@ static void *postcopy_ram_listen_thread(void *opaque)
> > static int loadvm_postcopy_handle_listen(MigrationIncomingState *mis)
> > {
> > PostcopyState ps = postcopy_state_set(POSTCOPY_INCOMING_LISTENING);
> > - trace_loadvm_postcopy_handle_listen();
> > Error *local_err = NULL;
> >
> > + trace_loadvm_postcopy_handle_listen("enter");
> > +
> > if (ps != POSTCOPY_INCOMING_ADVISE && ps != POSTCOPY_INCOMING_DISCARD)
> > {
> > error_report("CMD_POSTCOPY_LISTEN in wrong postcopy state (%d)",
> > ps);
> > return -1;
> > @@ -1964,6 +1965,8 @@ static int
> > loadvm_postcopy_handle_listen(MigrationIncomingState *mis)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + trace_loadvm_postcopy_handle_listen("after disgard");
>
> s/disgard/discard/
Will fix.
>
> > +
> > /*
> > * Sensitise RAM - can now generate requests for blocks that don't
> > exist
> > * However, at this point the CPU shouldn't be running, and the IO
> > @@ -1976,6 +1979,8 @@ static int
> > loadvm_postcopy_handle_listen(MigrationIncomingState *mis)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + trace_loadvm_postcopy_handle_listen("after uffd");
> > +
> > if (postcopy_notify(POSTCOPY_NOTIFY_INBOUND_LISTEN, &local_err)) {
> > error_report_err(local_err);
> > return -1;
> > @@ -1990,6 +1995,8 @@ static int
> > loadvm_postcopy_handle_listen(MigrationIncomingState *mis)
> > qemu_sem_wait(&mis->listen_thread_sem);
> > qemu_sem_destroy(&mis->listen_thread_sem);
> >
> > + trace_loadvm_postcopy_handle_listen("exit");
> > +
>
> "return" rather than "exit"?
I don't think it matters a lot, but sure.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
