在 2021/12/6 18:18, Peter Xu 写道:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 09:39:45AM +0800, huang...@chinatelecom.cn wrote:+static void dirtylimit_calc_func(void) +{ + CPUState *cpu; + DirtyPageRecord *dirty_pages; + int64_t start_time, end_time, calc_time; + DirtyRateVcpu rate; + int i = 0; + + dirty_pages = g_malloc0(sizeof(*dirty_pages) * + dirtylimit_calc_state->data.nvcpu); + + CPU_FOREACH(cpu) { + record_dirtypages(dirty_pages, cpu, true); + } + + start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME); + g_usleep(DIRTYLIMIT_CALC_TIME_MS * 1000); + end_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME); + calc_time = end_time - start_time; + + qemu_mutex_lock_iothread(); + memory_global_dirty_log_sync(); + qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread(); + + CPU_FOREACH(cpu) { + record_dirtypages(dirty_pages, cpu, false); + } + + for (i = 0; i < dirtylimit_calc_state->data.nvcpu; i++) { + uint64_t increased_dirty_pages = + dirty_pages[i].end_pages - dirty_pages[i].start_pages; + uint64_t memory_size_MB = + (increased_dirty_pages * TARGET_PAGE_SIZE) >> 20; + int64_t dirtyrate = (memory_size_MB * 1000) / calc_time; + + rate.id = i; + rate.dirty_rate = dirtyrate; + dirtylimit_calc_state->data.rates[i] = rate; + + trace_dirtyrate_do_calculate_vcpu(i, + dirtylimit_calc_state->data.rates[i].dirty_rate); + } +}This looks so like the calc-dirty-rate code already. I think adding a new resion (GLOBAL_DIRTY_LIMIT) is fine, however still, any
Ok.
chance to merge the code?
I'm not sure about merging but i'll try it. :)
