On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:59 PM Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 01:46:41PM +0800, Ivan Ren wrote: > >>>>> s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME); > >>>>>+ /* > >>>>>+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to match > >>>s->iteration_start_time. > >>>>>+ */ > >>>>>+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s); > >>>> > >>>>Is this one necessary? We have sent out nothing yet. > >>> > >>>Yes, currently nothing has been sent yet at this point. > >>> > >>>Is that better to always match the update of iteration_initial_bytes > >>>and iteration_start_time in a explicit way to avoid some potential > >missing? > >>> > >> > >>You may get some point. Well after a close look, we may find other > >potential > >>problem. > >> > > Well, I guess you need to use another tool to send mail. The format is > corrupted. >
OK > >>1. To be consistency, we need to update iteration_initial_pages too. > >> So my opinion is to wrap the update of these three counters into a > >helper > >> function. So each time all of them. > > I don't see you reply this one or the mail is corrupted. > > If we don't update iteration_initial_pages, the initial_pages will mismatch > the initial_bytes. Am I right? Yes, agree, I'll send a new version, thanks. > > >>2. In function ram_get_total_transferred_pages, do we missed multifd_bytes? > > > >In function ram_save_multifd_page, ram pages transferred by multifd threads > >is > >counted by ram_counters.normal. > >You mean other multifd bytes like multifd packet or multifd sync info? > > > > Ok, it is counted in normal. > > While if my understanding is correct, normal is used to count pages sent by > save_normal_page(). Sounds this is misused? > Yes, current it is counted in normal, a specific counter is more accurate. Thanks
