On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:17:19AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>On 18/07/19 03:25, Wei Yang wrote:
>> RAMBlock->used_length is always passed to migration_bitmap_sync_range(),
>> which could be retrieved from RAMBlock.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> migration/ram.c | 9 ++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
>> index 908517fc2b..0a6070d787 100644
>> --- a/migration/ram.c
>> +++ b/migration/ram.c
>> @@ -1669,11 +1669,10 @@ static inline bool
>> migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(RAMState *rs,
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> -static void migration_bitmap_sync_range(RAMState *rs, RAMBlock *rb,
>> - ram_addr_t length)
>> +static void migration_bitmap_sync_range(RAMState *rs, RAMBlock *rb)
>> {
>> rs->migration_dirty_pages +=
>> - cpu_physical_memory_sync_dirty_bitmap(rb, 0, length,
>> + cpu_physical_memory_sync_dirty_bitmap(rb, 0, rb->used_length,
>> &rs->num_dirty_pages_period);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1762,7 +1761,7 @@ static void migration_bitmap_sync(RAMState *rs)
>> qemu_mutex_lock(&rs->bitmap_mutex);
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> RAMBLOCK_FOREACH_NOT_IGNORED(block) {
>> - migration_bitmap_sync_range(rs, block, block->used_length);
>> + migration_bitmap_sync_range(rs, block);
>> }
>> ram_counters.remaining = ram_bytes_remaining();
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> @@ -4193,7 +4192,7 @@ static void colo_flush_ram_cache(void)
>> memory_global_dirty_log_sync();
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> RAMBLOCK_FOREACH_NOT_IGNORED(block) {
>> - migration_bitmap_sync_range(ram_state, block, block->used_length);
>> + migration_bitmap_sync_range(ram_state, block);
>> }
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>
>>
>
>Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>
>and in fact we can rename the function to ramblock_sync_dirty_bitmap.
Sounds reasonable. Let me improve it.
>
>Paolo
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
