On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 10:25:46AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > "Chuang Xu" <[email protected]> writes: > > > From: xuchuangxclwt <[email protected]> > > > > In our long-term experience in Bytedance, we've found that under > > the same load, live migration of larger VMs with more devices is > > often more difficult to converge (requiring a larger downtime limit). > > > > Through some testing and calculations, we conclude that bitmap sync time > > affects the calculation of live migration bandwidth.
Side note: I forgot to mention when replying to the old versions, but we introduced avail-switchover-bandwidth to partially remedy this problem when we hit it before - which may or may not be exactly the same reason here on unaligned syncs as we didn't further investigate (we have VFIO-PCI devices when testing), but the whole logic should be similar that bw was calculated too small. So even if with this patch optimizing sync, bw is always not as accurate. I wonder if we can still fix it somehow, e.g. I wonder if 100ms is too short a period to take samples, or at least we should be able to remember more samples so the reported bw (even if we keep sampling per 100ms) will cover longer period. Feel free to share your thoughts if you have any. > > > > When the addresses processed are not aligned, a large number of > > clear_dirty ioctl occur (e.g. a 4MB misaligned memory can generate > > 2048 clear_dirty ioctls from two different memory_listener), > > which increases the time required for bitmap_sync and makes it > > more difficult for dirty pages to converge. > > > > For a 64C256G vm with 8 vhost-user-net(32 queue per nic) and > > 16 vhost-user-blk(4 queue per blk), the sync time is as high as *73ms* > > (tested with 10GBps dirty rate, the sync time increases as the dirty > > page rate increases), Here are each part of the sync time: > > > > - sync from kvm to ram_list: 2.5ms > > - vhost_log_sync:3ms > > - sync aligned memory from ram_list to RAMBlock: 5ms > > - sync misaligned memory from ram_list to RAMBlock: 61ms > > > > Attempt to merge those fragmented clear_dirty ioctls, then syncing > > misaligned memory from ram_list to RAMBlock takes only about 1ms, > > and the total sync time is only *12ms*. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chuang Xu <[email protected]> > > --- > > accel/tcg/cputlb.c | 5 ++-- > > include/system/physmem.h | 7 +++--- > > migration/ram.c | 17 ++++---------- > > system/memory.c | 2 +- > > system/physmem.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > 5 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/accel/tcg/cputlb.c b/accel/tcg/cputlb.c > > index fd1606c856..c8827c8b0d 100644 > > --- a/accel/tcg/cputlb.c > > +++ b/accel/tcg/cputlb.c > > @@ -857,8 +857,9 @@ void > > tlb_flush_page_bits_by_mmuidx_all_cpus_synced(CPUState *src_cpu, > > void tlb_protect_code(ram_addr_t ram_addr) > > { > > physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(ram_addr & TARGET_PAGE_MASK, > > - TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, > > - DIRTY_MEMORY_CODE); > > + TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, > > + DIRTY_MEMORY_CODE, > > + NULL); > > } > > > > /* update the TLB so that writes in physical page 'phys_addr' are no longer > > diff --git a/include/system/physmem.h b/include/system/physmem.h > > index 879f6eae38..8eeace9d1f 100644 > > --- a/include/system/physmem.h > > +++ b/include/system/physmem.h > > @@ -39,9 +39,10 @@ uint64_t physical_memory_set_dirty_lebitmap(unsigned > > long *bitmap, > > > > void physical_memory_dirty_bits_cleared(ram_addr_t start, ram_addr_t > > length); > > > > -bool physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(ram_addr_t start, > > - ram_addr_t length, > > - unsigned client); > > +uint64_t physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(ram_addr_t start, > > + ram_addr_t length, > > + unsigned client, > > + unsigned long *dest); > > > > DirtyBitmapSnapshot * > > physical_memory_snapshot_and_clear_dirty(MemoryRegion *mr, hwaddr offset, > > diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c > > index 29f016cb25..a03c9874a2 100644 > > --- a/migration/ram.c > > +++ b/migration/ram.c > > @@ -942,7 +942,6 @@ static uint64_t > > physical_memory_sync_dirty_bitmap(RAMBlock *rb, > > ram_addr_t start, > > ram_addr_t length) > > { > > - ram_addr_t addr; > > unsigned long word = BIT_WORD((start + rb->offset) >> > > TARGET_PAGE_BITS); > > uint64_t num_dirty = 0; > > unsigned long *dest = rb->bmap; > > @@ -996,17 +995,11 @@ static uint64_t > > physical_memory_sync_dirty_bitmap(RAMBlock *rb, > > } else { > > ram_addr_t offset = rb->offset; > > > > - for (addr = 0; addr < length; addr += TARGET_PAGE_SIZE) { > > - if (physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty( > > - start + addr + offset, > > - TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, > > - DIRTY_MEMORY_MIGRATION)) { > > - long k = (start + addr) >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > > - if (!test_and_set_bit(k, dest)) { > > - num_dirty++; > > - } > > - } > > - } > > + num_dirty = physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty( > > + start + offset, > > + length, > > + DIRTY_MEMORY_MIGRATION, > > + dest); > > } > > > > return num_dirty; > > diff --git a/system/memory.c b/system/memory.c > > index 8b84661ae3..666364392d 100644 > > --- a/system/memory.c > > +++ b/system/memory.c > > @@ -2424,7 +2424,7 @@ void memory_region_reset_dirty(MemoryRegion *mr, > > hwaddr addr, > > { > > assert(mr->ram_block); > > physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty( > > - memory_region_get_ram_addr(mr) + addr, size, client); > > + memory_region_get_ram_addr(mr) + addr, size, client, NULL); > > } > > > > int memory_region_get_fd(MemoryRegion *mr) > > diff --git a/system/physmem.c b/system/physmem.c > > index c9869e4049..f8b660dafe 100644 > > --- a/system/physmem.c > > +++ b/system/physmem.c > > @@ -1089,19 +1089,31 @@ void physical_memory_set_dirty_range(ram_addr_t > > start, ram_addr_t length, > > } > > } > > > > -/* Note: start and end must be within the same ram block. */ > > -bool physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(ram_addr_t start, > > +/* > > + * Note: start and end must be within the same ram block. > > + * > > + * @dest usage: > > I'm not sure if it's just me, but I find this "dest" term quite > confusing. "bmap" might be more straight-forward. > > > + * - When @dest is provided, set bits for newly discovered dirty pages > > + * only if the bit wasn't already set in dest, and count those pages > > + * in num_dirty. > > Am I misreading the code? I don't see this "set ... only if the bit > wasn't already set" part. What I see is: "set bits, but only count those > pages if the bit wasn't already set". Agrees on both points.. one more thing to mention below. > > > + * - When @dest is NULL, count all dirty pages in the range > > + * > > + * @return: > > + * - Number of dirty guest pages found within [start, start + length). > > + */ > > +uint64_t physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(ram_addr_t start, > > ram_addr_t length, > > - unsigned client) > > + unsigned client, > > + unsigned long *dest) > > { > > DirtyMemoryBlocks *blocks; > > unsigned long end, page, start_page; > > - bool dirty = false; > > + uint64_t num_dirty = 0; > > RAMBlock *ramblock; > > uint64_t mr_offset, mr_size; > > > > if (length == 0) { > > - return false; > > + return 0; > > } > > > > end = TARGET_PAGE_ALIGN(start + length) >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > > @@ -1118,12 +1130,19 @@ bool > > physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(ram_addr_t start, > > while (page < end) { > > unsigned long idx = page / DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE; > > unsigned long offset = page % DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE; > > - unsigned long num = MIN(end - page, > > - DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE - offset); > > > > - dirty |= bitmap_test_and_clear_atomic(blocks->blocks[idx], > > - offset, num); > > - page += num; > > + if (bitmap_test_and_clear_atomic(blocks->blocks[idx], offset, > > 1)) { > > + if (dest) { > > + unsigned long k = page - (ramblock->offset >> > > TARGET_PAGE_BITS); > > + if (!test_and_set_bit(k, dest)) { > > + num_dirty++; > > + } > > + } else { > > + num_dirty++; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + page++; Sorry I could have mentioned this in the previous version: IMHO it'll still be nice to keep the one atomic operations for !dest/!bmap case over "num". There's no reason we need to introduce even any slightest regression in those paths. Thanks, > > } > > > > mr_offset = (ram_addr_t)(start_page << TARGET_PAGE_BITS) - > > ramblock->offset; > > @@ -1131,18 +1150,18 @@ bool > > physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(ram_addr_t start, > > memory_region_clear_dirty_bitmap(ramblock->mr, mr_offset, mr_size); > > } > > > > - if (dirty) { > > + if (num_dirty) { > > physical_memory_dirty_bits_cleared(start, length); > > } > > > > - return dirty; > > + return num_dirty; > > } > > > > static void physical_memory_clear_dirty_range(ram_addr_t addr, ram_addr_t > > length) > > { > > - physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(addr, length, > > DIRTY_MEMORY_MIGRATION); > > - physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(addr, length, DIRTY_MEMORY_VGA); > > - physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(addr, length, DIRTY_MEMORY_CODE); > > + physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(addr, length, > > DIRTY_MEMORY_MIGRATION, NULL); > > + physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(addr, length, DIRTY_MEMORY_VGA, > > NULL); > > + physical_memory_test_and_clear_dirty(addr, length, DIRTY_MEMORY_CODE, > > NULL); > > } > > > > DirtyBitmapSnapshot *physical_memory_snapshot_and_clear_dirty > -- Peter Xu
