"Li, Liang Z" <liang.z...@intel.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Li, Liang Z <liang.z...@intel.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Jiangshan,
>> >
>> > Glad to see your patch. It's a simple implementation which could provide
>> very useful functions.
>> >
>> >> +static void migration_bitmap_init(unsigned long *bitmap) {
>> >> + RAMBlock *block;
>> >> +
>> >> + bitmap_clear(bitmap, 0, last_ram_offset() >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS);
>> >> + rcu_read_lock();
>> >> + QLIST_FOREACH_RCU(block, &ram_list.blocks, next) {
>> >> + if (!migrate_bypass_shared_memory()
>> >> || !qemu_ram_is_shared(block)) {
>> >> + bitmap_set(bitmap, block->offset >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS,
>> >
>> > You should use (block->offset >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS )/ BITS_PER_LONG
>> here.
>>
>> Hello, Li
>>
>> I might have missed something, could you tell me more?
>>
>> void bitmap_set(unsigned long *map, long start, long nr); I think the @start
>> and @nr are both the number of the bits.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Lai
>
> You are right, I have make a mistake by checking the code. Sorry for the
> noise.
>
> BTW. Is it possible to bypass the shared block in the
> 'ram_find_and_save_block'?
> I mean no to check if a page is dirty for a shared block, it may make things
> faster.
Nice spotted. That would make things faster. But once there we could
split the bitmap by ramblock, and the migration_dirty_pages also per
block, that would make all the searchs faster, and adding/removing
blocks of ram much easier. If we enter optimizing that function, we
could really do much better that the "again" parameter that we have
right now.
Later, Juan.
