On 11/12/2015 04:33 PM, Wen Congyang wrote:
>Imagine that migration_dirty_pages is slightly too small and we enter
ram_save_iterate;
>ram_save_iterate now sends*all* it's pages, it decrements
migration_dirty_pages for
>every page sent. At the end of ram_save_iterate, migration_dirty_pages wo
On 11/04/2015 05:19 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Wen Congyang (we...@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
>> On 11/04/2015 05:05 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>> * Wen Congyang (we...@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
On 11/03/2015 09:47 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Juan Quintela (quint...@r
* Wen Congyang (we...@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 05:05 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Wen Congyang (we...@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> >> On 11/03/2015 09:47 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >>> * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
On 11/04/2015 05:05 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Wen Congyang (we...@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
>> On 11/03/2015 09:47 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>> * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm trying to understand why migrati
* Wen Congyang (we...@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> On 11/03/2015 09:47 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I'm trying to understand why migration_bitmap_extend is correct/safe;
> >>> If I understand c
On 11/03/2015 09:47 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
>> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm trying to understand why migration_bitmap_extend is correct/safe;
>>> If I understand correctly, you're arguing that:
>>>
>>> 1) the migration
* Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm trying to understand why migration_bitmap_extend is correct/safe;
> > If I understand correctly, you're arguing that:
> >
> > 1) the migration_bitmap_mutex around the extend, stops any sync's
> > ha
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm trying to understand why migration_bitmap_extend is correct/safe;
> If I understand correctly, you're arguing that:
>
> 1) the migration_bitmap_mutex around the extend, stops any sync's happening
> and so no new bits will be set during the exten
Hi,
I'm trying to understand why migration_bitmap_extend is correct/safe;
If I understand correctly, you're arguing that:
1) the migration_bitmap_mutex around the extend, stops any sync's happening
and so no new bits will be set during the extend.
2) If migration sends a page and clear
