Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: "Zhou, Wenjian/???" [mailto:zhouwj-fnst at cn.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:53 PM > To: Usui Minoru(?? ?) <min-usui at ti.jp.nec.com>; kexec at lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Improve the performance of --num-threads -d 31 > > On 02/23/2016 10:16 AM, Minoru Usui wrote: > > Hello Zhou > > > > I'm sorry for late reply, too. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "Zhou, Wenjian/???" [mailto:zhouwj-fnst at cn.fujitsu.com] > >> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 11:15 AM > >> To: Usui Minoru(?? ?) <min-usui at ti.jp.nec.com>; kexec at lists.infradead.org > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Improve the performance of --num-threads -d 31 > >> > >> Hello Usui, > >> > >> Thanks very much for your comments. > >> And sorry for the late reply. > >> > >> See below. > >> > >> On 02/08/2016 01:00 PM, Minoru Usui wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: kexec [mailto:kexec-bounces at lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Minoru Usui > >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:52 AM > >>>> To: Zhou Wenjian <zhouwj-fnst at cn.fujitsu.com>; kexec at lists.infradead.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Improve the performance of --num-threads -d 31 > >>>> > >>>> Hi, Zhou > >>>> > >>>> I have some comments. > >>>> I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your code. > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: kexec [mailto:kexec-bounces at lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Zhou Wenjian > >>>>> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 3:22 PM > >>>>> To: kexec at lists.infradead.org > >>>>> Subject: [PATCH v1] Improve the performance of --num-threads -d 31 > >>>>> > >>>>> v1: > >>>>> 1. change page_flag.ready's value to enum > >>>>> 2. change the patch description > >>>>> 3. cleanup some codes > >>>>> 4. fix a bug in cyclic mode > >>>>> > >>>>> multi-threads implementation will introduce extra cost when handling > >>>>> each page. The origin implementation will also do the extra work for > >>>>> filtered pages. So there is a big performance degradation in > >>>>> --num-threads -d 31. > >>>>> The new implementation won't do the extra work for filtered pages any > >>>>> more. So the performance of -d 31 is close to that of serial processing. > >>>>> > >>>>> The new implementation is just like the following: > >>>>> * The basic idea is producer producing page and consumer writing page. > >>>>> * Each producer have a page_flag_buf list which is used for storing > >>>>> page's description. > >>>>> * The size of page_flag_buf is little so it won't take too much memory. > >>>>> * And all producers will share a page_data_buf array which is > >>>>> used for storing page's compressed data. > >>>>> * The main thread is the consumer. It will find the next pfn and write > >>>>> it into file. > >>>>> * The next pfn is smallest pfn in all page_flag_buf. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhou Wenjian <zhouwj-fnst at cn.fujitsu.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> makedumpfile.c | 258 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > >>>>> makedumpfile.h | 31 ++++--- > >>>>> 2 files changed, 193 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/makedumpfile.c b/makedumpfile.c > >>>>> index fa0b779..0ecd065 100644 > >>>>> --- a/makedumpfile.c > >>>>> +++ b/makedumpfile.c > >>>>> @@ -3483,7 +3483,8 @@ initial_for_parallel() > >>>>> unsigned long page_data_buf_size; > >>>>> unsigned long limit_size; > >>>>> int page_data_num; > >>>>> - int i; > >>>>> + struct page_flag *current; > >>>>> + int i, j; > >>>>> > >>>>> len_buf_out = calculate_len_buf_out(info->page_size); > >>>>> > >>>>> @@ -3562,8 +3563,10 @@ initial_for_parallel() > >>>>> - MAP_REGION * info->num_threads) * 0.6; > >>>>> > >>>>> page_data_num = limit_size / page_data_buf_size; > >>>>> + info->num_buffers = 3 * info->num_threads; > >>>>> > >>>>> - info->num_buffers = MIN(NUM_BUFFERS, page_data_num); > >>>>> + info->num_buffers = MAX(info->num_buffers, NUM_BUFFERS); > >>>>> + info->num_buffers = MIN(info->num_buffers, page_data_num); > >>>>> > >>>>> DEBUG_MSG("Number of struct page_data for produce/consume: %d\n", > >>>>> info->num_buffers); > >>>>> @@ -3588,6 +3591,36 @@ initial_for_parallel() > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> /* > >>>>> + * initial page_flag for each thread > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> + if ((info->page_flag_buf = malloc(sizeof(void *) * info->num_threads)) > >>>>> + == NULL) { > >>>>> + MSG("Can't allocate memory for page_flag_buf. %s\n", > >>>>> + strerror(errno)); > >>>>> + return FALSE; > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + memset(info->page_flag_buf, 0, sizeof(void *) * info->num_threads); > >>>>> + > >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < info->num_threads; i++) { > >>>>> + if ((info->page_flag_buf[i] = malloc(sizeof(struct page_flag))) == NULL) { > >>>> > >>>> Fist element of struct page_flag in circular list is allocated by malloc(), > >>>> but other elements are allocated by calloc().(see below) > >>>> I think both elements should be allocated by calloc(). > >>>> > >> > >> Yes, you are right. > >> I have made a mistake. > >> > >>>>> + MSG("Can't allocate memory for page_flag_buf. %s\n", > >>>>> + strerror(errno)); > >>>>> + return FALSE; > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + current = info->page_flag_buf[i]; > >>>>> + > >>>>> + for (j = 1; j < NUM_BUFFERS; j++) { > >>>>> + if ((current->next = calloc(0, sizeof(struct page_flag))) == NULL) { > >>>>> + MSG("Can't allocate memory for data of page_data_buf. %s\n", > >>>>> + strerror(errno)); > >>>>> + return FALSE; > >>>>> + } > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> First argument of calloc() should be 1, not 0. > >>>> And there is typo in error message. > >>>> Allocated element is not page_data_buf. > >>>> > >> > >> I agree. > >> > >>>>> + current = current->next; > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + current->next = info->page_flag_buf[i]; > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> * initial fd_memory for threads > >>>>> */ > >>>>> for (i = 0; i < info->num_threads; i++) { > >>>>> @@ -3612,7 +3645,8 @@ initial_for_parallel() > >>>>> void > >>>>> free_for_parallel() > >>>>> { > >>>>> - int i; > >>>>> + int i, j; > >>>>> + struct page_flag *current; > >>>>> > >>>>> if (info->threads != NULL) { > >>>>> for (i = 0; i < info->num_threads; i++) { > >>>>> @@ -3655,6 +3689,19 @@ free_for_parallel() > >>>>> free(info->page_data_buf); > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> + if (info->page_flag_buf != NULL) { > >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < info->num_threads; i++) { > >>>>> + for (j = 0; j < NUM_BUFFERS; j++) { > >>>>> + if (info->page_flag_buf[i] != NULL) { > >>>>> + current = info->page_flag_buf[i]; > >>>>> + info->page_flag_buf[i] = current->next; > >>>>> + free(current); > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + free(info->page_flag_buf); > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + > >>>>> if (info->parallel_info == NULL) > >>>>> return; > >>>>> > >>>>> @@ -7076,10 +7123,10 @@ kdump_thread_function_cyclic(void *arg) { > >>>>> void *retval = PTHREAD_FAIL; > >>>>> struct thread_args *kdump_thread_args = (struct thread_args *)arg; > >>>>> struct page_data *page_data_buf = kdump_thread_args->page_data_buf; > >>>>> + struct page_flag *page_flag_buf = kdump_thread_args->page_flag_buf; > >>>>> struct cycle *cycle = kdump_thread_args->cycle; > >>>>> - int page_data_num = kdump_thread_args->page_data_num; > >>>>> mdf_pfn_t pfn; > >>>>> - int index; > >>>>> + int index = kdump_thread_args->thread_num; > >>>>> int buf_ready; > >>>>> int dumpable; > >>>>> int fd_memory = 0; > >>>>> @@ -7125,47 +7172,47 @@ kdump_thread_function_cyclic(void *arg) { > >>>>> kdump_thread_args->thread_num); > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> - while (1) { > >>>>> - /* get next pfn */ > >>>>> - pthread_mutex_lock(&info->current_pfn_mutex); > >>>>> - pfn = info->current_pfn; > >>>>> - info->current_pfn++; > >>>>> - pthread_mutex_unlock(&info->current_pfn_mutex); > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * filtered page won't take anything > >>>>> + * unfiltered zero page will only take a page_flag_buf > >>>>> + * unfiltered non-zero page will take a page_flag_buf and a page_data_buf > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> + while (page_flag_buf->pfn < kdump_thread_args->end_pfn) { > >>>> > >>>> At first, page_flag_buf->pfn is not initialized. > >>>> I think this block should be replaced with the following code. > >>>> > >>>> === > >>>> do { > >>>> : > >>>> } while(page_flag_buf->pfn < kdump_thread_args->end_pfn) > >>>> === > >>> > >>> I'm sorry, above suggestion is meaningless in terms of page_flag_buf->pfn is uninitialized. > >>> It should be replaced like following. > >>> > >>> === > >>> while (1) { > >>> : > >>> while (buf_ready == FALSE) { > >>> : > >>> if (pfn >= kdump_thread_args->end_pfn) { > >>> : > >>> goto finish; > >>> } > >>> : > >>> } > >>> : > >>> } > >>> finish: > >>> === > >>> > >> > >> page_flag_buf is allocated by calloc(). > >> The page_flag_buf->pfn's value is 0. > >> So I think it is not necessary to modify the code. > >> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Minoru Usui > >>> > >>> > >>>>> + buf_ready = FALSE; > >>>>> > >>>>> - if (pfn >= kdump_thread_args->end_pfn) > >>>>> - break; > >>>>> + while (page_data_buf[index].used != 0 || > >>>>> + pthread_mutex_trylock(&page_data_buf[index].mutex) != 0) > >>>>> + index = (index + 1) % info->num_buffers; > >>>>> > >>>>> - index = -1; > >>>>> - buf_ready = FALSE; > >>>>> + page_data_buf[index].used = 1; > >>>> > >>>> "1" is a magic number. > >>>> It should be changed TRUE or FALSE. > >>>> > >> > >> I see. > >> > >>>>> while (buf_ready == FALSE) { > >>>>> pthread_testcancel(); > >>>>> - > >>>>> - index = pfn % page_data_num; > >>>>> - > >>>>> - if (pfn - info->consumed_pfn > info->num_buffers) > >>>>> + if (page_flag_buf->ready == FLAG_READY) > >>>>> continue; > >>>> > >>>> At first, page_flag_buf->ready is uninitialized, too. > >>>> Should it be initialized in head part of this function, even if FLAG_UNUSED is defined 0? > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> The same topic as the page_flag_buf is allocated by calloc(). > >> > >>>>> > >>>>> - if (page_data_buf[index].ready != 0) > >>>>> - continue; > >>>>> - > >>>>> - pthread_mutex_lock(&page_data_buf[index].mutex); > >>>>> + /* get next pfn */ > >>>>> + pthread_mutex_lock(&info->current_pfn_mutex); > >>>>> + pfn = info->current_pfn; > >>>>> + info->current_pfn++; > >>>>> + page_flag_buf->ready = FLAG_FILLING; > >>>>> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&info->current_pfn_mutex); > >>>>> > >>>>> - if (page_data_buf[index].ready != 0) > >>>>> - goto unlock; > >>>>> + page_flag_buf->pfn = pfn; > >>>> > >>>> It set FLAG_FILLING to page_flag_buf->ready before setting pfn to page_flag_buf->pfn. > >>>> But consumer gets page_flag_buf->pfn after checking page_flag_buf->ready != FLAG_UNUSED > >>>> in getting minimum pfn of each thread block. > >>>> Should it set page_flag_buf->pfn first? > >>>> > >> > >> Have you noticed the following code in the consumer? > >> <cut> > >> if (current_pfn == info->page_flag_buf[consuming]->pfn) > >> break; > >> <cut> > > > > No, I pointed following code. > > This part accesses info->page_flag_buf[i]->ready, then it accesses info->page_flag_buf[i]->pfn immediately. > > So, temp_pfn may be wrong pfn at this moment. > > > > --- > > for (i = 0; i < info->num_threads; i++) { > > if (info->page_flag_buf[i]->ready == FLAG_UNUSED) > > continue; > > temp_pfn = info->page_flag_buf[i]->pfn; > > --- > > > >> The consumer will check if the pfn is changed after the page_flag_buf->ready turns to be FLAG_READY. > >> So it's not important whether setting page_flag_buf->pfn first or not. > > > > As you said, consumer checks pfn which is changed. > > So it works well. > > > >> In the other hand, even setting page_flag_buf->pfn first, if the pfn is not dumpable, the producer > >> will also reset the page_flag_buf->pfn. > > > > Thank you for your explanation. > > I didn't notice that pfn can be undumpable. > > > >>>>> > >>>>> - buf_ready = TRUE; > >>>>> - > >>>>> - page_data_buf[index].pfn = pfn; > >>>>> - page_data_buf[index].ready = 1; > >>>>> + if (pfn >= kdump_thread_args->end_pfn) { > >>>>> + page_data_buf[index].used = 0; > >>>>> + page_flag_buf->ready = FLAG_READY; > >>>>> + info->current_pfn--; > >>>>> + break; > >>>>> + } > >>>> > >>>> This block decrements info->current_pfn without info->current_pfn_mutex. > >>>> I think this block should be moved into previous pthread_mutex_lock(info->current_pfn_mutex) block, so it can remove. > >>>> > >> > >> Why do you think it should have current_pfn_mutex? > >> > >> If pfn >= kdump_thread_args->end_pfn, info->current_pfn will always larger than > >> kdump_thread_args->end_pfn. info->current_pfn-- won't affect anything. > >> > >> The decrement operation is for cyclic mode. > >> > >>>>> > >>>>> dumpable = is_dumpable( > >>>>> info->fd_bitmap ? &bitmap_parallel : info->bitmap2, > >>>>> pfn, > >>>>> cycle); > >>>>> - page_data_buf[index].dumpable = dumpable; > >>>>> if (!dumpable) > >>>>> - goto unlock; > >>>>> + continue; > >>>>> > >>>>> if (!read_pfn_parallel(fd_memory, pfn, buf, > >>>>> &bitmap_memory_parallel, > >>>>> @@ -7178,11 +7225,11 @@ kdump_thread_function_cyclic(void *arg) { > >>>>> > >>>>> if ((info->dump_level & DL_EXCLUDE_ZERO) > >>>>> && is_zero_page(buf, info->page_size)) { > >>>>> - page_data_buf[index].zero = TRUE; > >>>>> - goto unlock; > >>>>> + page_flag_buf->zero = TRUE; > >>>>> + goto next; > >>>>> } > >>>> > >>>> First, this code gets page_data_buf, then it gets page_flag_buf. > >>>> However, if processed pfn is zero page, > >>>> it processes next pfn while keeping page_data_buf. > >>>> > >>>> I think it should get page_flag_buf, then get page_data_buf > >>>> in order to shorten the holding period of the page_data_buf[index].mutex. > >>>> > >> > >> Do you mean the following logic? > >> 1. get the page_flag_buf first > >> 2. if the pfn is not zero page, then get the page_data_buf. > > > > Yes. > > > >> Think about the following case. > >> A producer get the page_flag_buf, and the pfn is not zero page. > >> It wants to get a page_data_buf, but there is no more page_data_buf. > >> Then ... > > > > It's not a problem. > > In not zero page case, this logic needs both page_flag_buf and page_data_buf, > > so waiting buffer is obvious when it isn't able to get page_flag_buf or page_data_buf. > > > > Of course, waiting is not a problem. > But if other page_data_bufs are all used by later pfns, it will > wait forever. That's the problem. I understand. Thank you for your explanation. Minoru Usui > -- > Thanks > Zhou > > >> Since there are several page_data_bufs, it's not a problem that each producer > >> will always hold a page_data_buf. > > > > It depends on the speed of consumer and producer. > > It's not possible to predict it. > > > > In zero page case, I think each producer executes more parallel theoretically > > if page_data_buf doesn't get. > > > > Thanks, > > Minoru Usui > > > >> > >> Thanks again for your comments. > >> And I will post the next version later. > >> > >> -- > >> Thanks > >> Zhou > >> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Minoru Usui > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> - page_data_buf[index].zero = FALSE; > >>>>> + page_flag_buf->zero = FALSE; > >>>>> > >>>>> /* > >>>>> * Compress the page data. > >>>>> @@ -7232,12 +7279,16 @@ kdump_thread_function_cyclic(void *arg) { > >>>>> page_data_buf[index].size = info->page_size; > >>>>> memcpy(page_data_buf[index].buf, buf, info->page_size); > >>>>> } > >>>>> -unlock: > >>>>> - pthread_mutex_unlock(&page_data_buf[index].mutex); > >>>>> + page_flag_buf->index = index; > >>>>> + buf_ready = TRUE; > >>>>> +next: > >>>>> + page_flag_buf->ready = FLAG_READY; > >>>>> + page_flag_buf = page_flag_buf->next; > >>>>> > >>>>> } > >>>>> - } > >>>>> > >>>>> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&page_data_buf[index].mutex); > >>>>> + } > >>>>> retval = NULL; > >>>>> > >>>>> fail: > >>>>> @@ -7265,14 +7316,15 @@ write_kdump_pages_parallel_cyclic(struct cache_data *cd_header, > >>>>> struct page_desc pd; > >>>>> struct timeval tv_start; > >>>>> struct timeval last, new; > >>>>> - unsigned long long consuming_pfn; > >>>>> pthread_t **threads = NULL; > >>>>> struct thread_args *kdump_thread_args = NULL; > >>>>> void *thread_result; > >>>>> - int page_data_num; > >>>>> + int page_buf_num; > >>>>> struct page_data *page_data_buf = NULL; > >>>>> int i; > >>>>> int index; > >>>>> + int end_count, consuming, check_count; > >>>>> + mdf_pfn_t current_pfn, temp_pfn; > >>>>> > >>>>> if (info->flag_elf_dumpfile) > >>>>> return FALSE; > >>>>> @@ -7319,16 +7371,11 @@ write_kdump_pages_parallel_cyclic(struct cache_data *cd_header, > >>>>> threads = info->threads; > >>>>> kdump_thread_args = info->kdump_thread_args; > >>>>> > >>>>> - page_data_num = info->num_buffers; > >>>>> + page_buf_num = info->num_buffers; > >>>>> page_data_buf = info->page_data_buf; > >>>>> > >>>>> - for (i = 0; i < page_data_num; i++) { > >>>>> - /* > >>>>> - * producer will use pfn in page_data_buf to decide the > >>>>> - * consumed pfn > >>>>> - */ > >>>>> - page_data_buf[i].pfn = start_pfn - 1; > >>>>> - page_data_buf[i].ready = 0; > >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < page_buf_num; i++) { > >>>>> + page_data_buf[i].used = 0; > >>>>> res = pthread_mutex_init(&page_data_buf[i].mutex, NULL); > >>>>> if (res != 0) { > >>>>> ERRMSG("Can't initialize mutex of page_data_buf. %s\n", > >>>>> @@ -7342,8 +7389,9 @@ write_kdump_pages_parallel_cyclic(struct cache_data *cd_header, > >>>>> kdump_thread_args[i].len_buf_out = len_buf_out; > >>>>> kdump_thread_args[i].start_pfn = start_pfn; > >>>>> kdump_thread_args[i].end_pfn = end_pfn; > >>>>> - kdump_thread_args[i].page_data_num = page_data_num; > >>>>> + kdump_thread_args[i].page_buf_num = page_buf_num; > >>>>> kdump_thread_args[i].page_data_buf = page_data_buf; > >>>>> + kdump_thread_args[i].page_flag_buf = info->page_flag_buf[i]; > >>>>> kdump_thread_args[i].cycle = cycle; > >>>>> > >>>>> res = pthread_create(threads[i], NULL, > >>>>> @@ -7356,55 +7404,94 @@ write_kdump_pages_parallel_cyclic(struct cache_data *cd_header, > >>>>> } > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> - consuming_pfn = start_pfn; > >>>>> - index = -1; > >>>>> + while (1) { > >>>>> + consuming = 0; > >>>>> + check_count = 0; > >>>>> + end_count = 0; > >>>>> > >>>>> - gettimeofday(&last, NULL); > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * The basic idea is producer producing page and consumer writing page. > >>>>> + * Each producer have a page_flag_buf list which is used for storing page's description. > >>>>> + * The size of page_flag_buf is little so it won't take too much memory. > >>>>> + * And all producers will share a page_data_buf array which is used for storing page's compressed data. > >>>>> + * The main thread is the consumer. It will find the next pfn and write it into file. > >>>>> + * The next pfn is smallest pfn in all page_flag_buf. > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> + while (1) { > >>>>> + current_pfn = end_pfn; > >>>>> > >>>>> - while (consuming_pfn < end_pfn) { > >>>>> - index = consuming_pfn % page_data_num; > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * page_flag_buf is in circular linked list. > >>>>> + * The array info->page_flag_buf[] records the current page_flag_buf in each thread's > >>>>> + * page_flag_buf list. > >>>>> + * consuming is used for recording in which thread the pfn is the smallest. > >>>>> + * current_pfn is used for recording the value of pfn when checking the pfn. > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < info->num_threads; i++) { > >>>>> + if (info->page_flag_buf[i]->ready == FLAG_UNUSED) > >>>>> + continue; > >>>>> + temp_pfn = info->page_flag_buf[i]->pfn; > >>>>> > >>>>> - gettimeofday(&new, NULL); > >>>>> - if (new.tv_sec - last.tv_sec > WAIT_TIME) { > >>>>> - ERRMSG("Can't get data of pfn %llx.\n", consuming_pfn); > >>>>> - goto out; > >>>>> - } > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * count how many threads have reached the end. > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> + if (temp_pfn >= end_pfn) { > >>>>> + end_count++; > >>>>> + info->page_flag_buf[i]->ready = FLAG_UNUSED; > >>>>> + continue; > >>>>> + } > >>>>> > >>>>> - /* > >>>>> - * check pfn first without mutex locked to reduce the time > >>>>> - * trying to lock the mutex > >>>>> - */ > >>>>> - if (page_data_buf[index].pfn != consuming_pfn) > >>>>> - continue; > >>>>> + if (current_pfn < temp_pfn) > >>>>> + continue; > >>>>> > >>>>> - if (pthread_mutex_trylock(&page_data_buf[index].mutex) != 0) > >>>>> - continue; > >>>>> + check_count++; > >>>>> + consuming = i; > >>>>> + current_pfn = temp_pfn; > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * If all the threads have reached the end, we will finish writing. > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> + if (end_count >= info->num_threads) > >>>>> + goto finish; > >>>>> + > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * Since it has the probabilty that there is no page_flag_buf being ready, > >>>>> + * we should recheck if it happens. > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> + if (check_count == 0) > >>>>> + continue; > >>>>> + > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * When we check the pfn in page_flag_buf, it may be being produced. > >>>>> + * So we should wait until it is ready to use. And if the pfn is > >>>>> + * different from the value when we check, we should rechoose the buf. > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> + gettimeofday(&last, NULL); > >>>>> + while (info->page_flag_buf[consuming]->ready != FLAG_READY) { > >>>>> + gettimeofday(&new, NULL); > >>>>> + if (new.tv_sec - last.tv_sec > WAIT_TIME) { > >>>>> + ERRMSG("Can't get data of pfn.\n"); > >>>>> + goto out; > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + } > >>>>> > >>>>> - /* check whether the found one is ready to be consumed */ > >>>>> - if (page_data_buf[index].pfn != consuming_pfn || > >>>>> - page_data_buf[index].ready != 1) { > >>>>> - goto unlock; > >>>>> + if (current_pfn == info->page_flag_buf[consuming]->pfn) > >>>>> + break; > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> if ((num_dumped % per) == 0) > >>>>> print_progress(PROGRESS_COPY, num_dumped, info->num_dumpable); > >>>>> > >>>>> - /* next pfn is found, refresh last here */ > >>>>> - last = new; > >>>>> - consuming_pfn++; > >>>>> - info->consumed_pfn++; > >>>>> - page_data_buf[index].ready = 0; > >>>>> - > >>>>> - if (page_data_buf[index].dumpable == FALSE) > >>>>> - goto unlock; > >>>>> - > >>>>> num_dumped++; > >>>>> > >>>>> - if (page_data_buf[index].zero == TRUE) { > >>>>> + > >>>>> + if (info->page_flag_buf[consuming]->zero == TRUE) { > >>>>> if (!write_cache(cd_header, pd_zero, sizeof(page_desc_t))) > >>>>> goto out; > >>>>> pfn_zero++; > >>>>> } else { > >>>>> + index = info->page_flag_buf[consuming]->index; > >>>>> pd.flags = page_data_buf[index].flags; > >>>>> pd.size = page_data_buf[index].size; > >>>>> pd.page_flags = 0; > >>>>> @@ -7420,12 +7507,12 @@ write_kdump_pages_parallel_cyclic(struct cache_data *cd_header, > >>>>> */ > >>>>> if (!write_cache(cd_page, page_data_buf[index].buf, pd.size)) > >>>>> goto out; > >>>>> - > >>>>> + page_data_buf[index].used = 0; > >>>>> } > >>>>> -unlock: > >>>>> - pthread_mutex_unlock(&page_data_buf[index].mutex); > >>>>> + info->page_flag_buf[consuming]->ready = FLAG_UNUSED; > >>>>> + info->page_flag_buf[consuming] = info->page_flag_buf[consuming]->next; > >>>>> } > >>>>> - > >>>>> +finish: > >>>>> ret = TRUE; > >>>>> /* > >>>>> * print [100 %] > >>>>> @@ -7464,7 +7551,7 @@ out: > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> if (page_data_buf != NULL) { > >>>>> - for (i = 0; i < page_data_num; i++) { > >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < page_buf_num; i++) { > >>>>> pthread_mutex_destroy(&page_data_buf[i].mutex); > >>>>> } > >>>>> } > >>>>> @@ -7564,6 +7651,7 @@ write_kdump_pages_cyclic(struct cache_data *cd_header, struct cache_data *cd_pag > >>>>> num_dumped++; > >>>>> if (!read_pfn(pfn, buf)) > >>>>> goto out; > >>>>> + > >>>>> filter_data_buffer(buf, pfn_to_paddr(pfn), info->page_size); > >>>>> > >>>>> /* > >>>>> diff --git a/makedumpfile.h b/makedumpfile.h > >>>>> index e0b5bbf..8a9a5b2 100644 > >>>>> --- a/makedumpfile.h > >>>>> +++ b/makedumpfile.h > >>>>> @@ -977,7 +977,7 @@ typedef unsigned long long int ulonglong; > >>>>> #define PAGE_DATA_NUM (50) > >>>>> #define WAIT_TIME (60 * 10) > >>>>> #define PTHREAD_FAIL ((void *)-2) > >>>>> -#define NUM_BUFFERS (50) > >>>>> +#define NUM_BUFFERS (20) > >>>>> > >>>>> struct mmap_cache { > >>>>> char *mmap_buf; > >>>>> @@ -985,28 +985,36 @@ struct mmap_cache { > >>>>> off_t mmap_end_offset; > >>>>> }; > >>>>> > >>>>> +enum { > >>>>> + FLAG_UNUSED, > >>>>> + FLAG_READY, > >>>>> + FLAG_FILLING > >>>>> +}; > >>>>> +struct page_flag { > >>>>> + mdf_pfn_t pfn; > >>>>> + char zero; > >>>>> + char ready; > >>>>> + short index; > >>>>> + struct page_flag *next; > >>>>> +}; > >>>>> + > >>>>> struct page_data > >>>>> { > >>>>> - mdf_pfn_t pfn; > >>>>> - int dumpable; > >>>>> - int zero; > >>>>> - unsigned int flags; > >>>>> + pthread_mutex_t mutex; > >>>>> long size; > >>>>> unsigned char *buf; > >>>>> - pthread_mutex_t mutex; > >>>>> - /* > >>>>> - * whether the page_data is ready to be consumed > >>>>> - */ > >>>>> - int ready; > >>>>> + int flags; > >>>>> + int used; > >>>>> }; > >>>>> > >>>>> struct thread_args { > >>>>> int thread_num; > >>>>> unsigned long len_buf_out; > >>>>> mdf_pfn_t start_pfn, end_pfn; > >>>>> - int page_data_num; > >>>>> + int page_buf_num; > >>>>> struct cycle *cycle; > >>>>> struct page_data *page_data_buf; > >>>>> + struct page_flag *page_flag_buf; > >>>>> }; > >>>>> > >>>>> /* > >>>>> @@ -1295,6 +1303,7 @@ struct DumpInfo { > >>>>> pthread_t **threads; > >>>>> struct thread_args *kdump_thread_args; > >>>>> struct page_data *page_data_buf; > >>>>> + struct page_flag **page_flag_buf; > >>>>> pthread_rwlock_t usemmap_rwlock; > >>>>> mdf_pfn_t current_pfn; > >>>>> pthread_mutex_t current_pfn_mutex; > >>>>> -- > >>>>> 1.8.3.1 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> kexec mailing list > >>>>> kexec at lists.infradead.org > >>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> kexec mailing list > >>>> kexec at lists.infradead.org > >>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec > >>> > >>> > >> > >
