On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:56:22AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: > Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: > >> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 09:44:58PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote: > >> >> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> > >> >> Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> > >> > > >> > Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> > >> > > >> > (I see that we have MigrationStats.dirty_pages_rate which looks > >> > similar to this one. Maybe one day we can merge these two?) > >> > >> no, this one is how many times we have synchronized the dirty bitmap > >> with kvm/rest of qemu. > >> dirty_pages_rame is the pages we have dirtied in some <period>. > >> > >> Period is not clear, it tries to be around one second, but that part is > >> not specially well done. > > > > Oh, sorry... I was trying to mean MigrationStats.dirty_sync_count, not > > MigrationStats.dirty_pages_rate. I think it was introduced in: > > > > commit 58570ed894631904bcdbcd1e8b34479cebe2aae9 > > Author: ChenLiang <chenlian...@huawei.com> > > Date: Fri Apr 4 17:57:55 2014 +0800 > > > > migration: expose the bitmap_sync_count to the end > > > > And these two variables are synchronized every time in > > migration_bitmap_sync(), so looks the same. Thanks, > > Ah, now I understand you. See this patch, it does what you suggest, no? > > [PATCH 31/51] ram: Create ram_dirty_sync_count()
Yes, it is. :) -- peterx
