On 11/30/2018 2:33 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 11/30/18 4:49 PM, Manjunath Patil wrote:
Thank you Boris for your comments. I removed faulty email of mine.
replies inline.
On 11/30/2018 12:42 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 11/29/18 12:17 AM, Manjunath Patil wrote:
Hi,
Feel free to suggest/comment on this.
I am trying to do the following at dst during the migration now.
1. Dont clear the old rinfo in blkif_free(). Instead just clean it.
2. Store the old rinfo and nr_rings into temp variables in
negotiate_mq()
3. let nr_rings get re-calculated based on backend data
4. try allocating new memory based on new nr_rings
Since I suspect number of rings will likely be the same why not reuse
the rings in the common case?
I thought attaching devices will be more often than migration. Hence
did not want add to an extra check for
- if I am inside migration code path and
- if new nr_rings is equal to old nr_rings or not
Sure addition of such a thing would avoid the memory allocation
altogether in migration path,
but it would add a little overhead for normal device addition.
Do you think its worth adding that change?
IMO a couple of extra checks are not going to make much difference.
I will add this change
I wonder though --- have you actually seen the case where you did fail
allocation and changes provided in this patch made things work? I am
asking because right after negotiate_mq() we will call setup_blkring()
and it will want to allocate bunch of memory. A failure there is fatal
(to ring setup). So it seems to me that you will survive negotiate_mq()
but then will likely fail soon after.
I have noticed the ENOMEM insise negotiate_mq() on ct machine. When I
included my patch, I manually triggered the ENOMEM using a debug flag.
The patch works for ENOMEM inside negotiate_mq().
As you mentioned, if we really hit the ENOMEM in negotiate_mq(), we
might hit it in setup_blkring() as well.
We should add the similar change to blkif_sring struct as well.
I will make this change as well and send the new patch-set for review.
5.
a. If memory allocation is a success
- free the old rinfo and proceed to use the new rinfo
b. If memory allocation is a failure
- use the old the rinfo
- adjust the nr_rings to the lowest of new nr_rings and old
nr_rings
@@ -1918,10 +1936,24 @@ static int negotiate_mq(struct blkfront_info
*info)
sizeof(struct blkfront_ring_info),
GFP_KERNEL);
if (!info->rinfo) {
- xenbus_dev_fatal(info->xbdev, -ENOMEM, "allocating
ring_info structure");
- info->nr_rings = 0;
- return -ENOMEM;
- }
+ if (unlikely(nr_rings_old)) {
+ /* We might waste some memory if
+ * info->nr_rings < nr_rings_old
+ */
+ info->rinfo = rinfo_old;
+ if (info->nr_rings > nr_rings_old)
+ info->nr_rings = nr_rings_old;
+ xenbus_dev_fatal(info->xbdev, -ENOMEM,
Why xenbus_dev_fatal()?
I wanted to make sure that this msg is seen on console by default. So
that we know there was a enomem event happened and we recovered from it.
What do you suggest instead? xenbus_dev_error?
Neither. xenbus_dev_fatal() is going to change connection state so it is
certainly not what we want. And even xenbus_dev_error() doesn't look
like the right thing to do since as far as block device setup is
concerned there are no errors.
Maybe pr_warn().
I will include this.
Thank you for your comments.
-boris
-boris
+ "reusing old ring_info structure(new ring size=%d)",
+ info->nr_rings);
+ } else {
+ xenbus_dev_fatal(info->xbdev, -ENOMEM,
+ "allocating ring_info structure");
+ info->nr_rings = 0;
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+ } else if (unlikely(nr_rings_old))
+ kfree(rinfo_old);
for (i = 0; i < info->nr_rings; i++) {
struct blkfront_ring_info *rinfo;
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
