Orit Wasserman wrote:
>> If we are in iterate state this means the bitmap is changing all the time,
>> even when we didn't finish a complete cycle (for example we get to
>> the bandwidth limit, exit ram_save_iterate and sync the bitmap in
>> pending).
>> This means that bits in part of the bitmap
On 10/28/2012 10:35 AM, Orit Wasserman wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 01:39 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Orit Wasserman wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2012 09:30 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Instead of testing each page individually, we search what is the next
dirty page with a bitmap operation. We have to reo
On 10/26/2012 01:39 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Orit Wasserman wrote:
>> On 10/18/2012 09:30 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>> Instead of testing each page individually, we search what is the next
>>> dirty page with a bitmap operation. We have to reorganize the code to
>>> move from a "for" loop, to a
Orit Wasserman wrote:
> On 10/18/2012 09:30 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Instead of testing each page individually, we search what is the next
>> dirty page with a bitmap operation. We have to reorganize the code to
>> move from a "for" loop, to a while(dirty) loop.
>>
>>
>> -do {
>> +w
On 10/18/2012 09:30 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Instead of testing each page individually, we search what is the next
> dirty page with a bitmap operation. We have to reorganize the code to
> move from a "for" loop, to a while(dirty) loop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela
> ---
> arch_init.c | 4
Instead of testing each page individually, we search what is the next
dirty page with a bitmap operation. We have to reorganize the code to
move from a "for" loop, to a while(dirty) loop.
Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela
---
arch_init.c | 45 ++---
1 file cha
