Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] migration/dirtyrate: Add block_dirty_info to store dirtypage info

["Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>]

* Chuan Zheng (zhengchuan@huawei.com) wrote:
> From: Zheng Chuan <zhengchuan@huawei.com>
> 
> Add block_dirty_info to store dirtypage info for each ramblock
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zheng Chuan <zhengchuan@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: YanYing Zhang <ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com>
> ---
>  migration/dirtyrate.h | 13 +++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/migration/dirtyrate.h b/migration/dirtyrate.h
> index 9a5c228..342b89f 100644
> --- a/migration/dirtyrate.h
> +++ b/migration/dirtyrate.h
> @@ -33,6 +33,19 @@ typedef enum {
>      CAL_DIRTY_RATE_END   = 2,
>  } CalculatingDirtyRateStage;
>  
> +/* 
> + * Store dirtypage info for each block.
> + */
> +struct block_dirty_info {

Please call this ramblock_dirty_info; we use 'block' a lot to mean
disk block and it gets confusing.

> +    char idstr[BLOCK_INFO_MAX_LEN];

Is there a reason you don't just use a RAMBlock *  here?

> +    uint8_t *block_addr;
> +    unsigned long block_pages;
> +    unsigned long *sample_page_vfn;

Please comment these; if I understand correctly, that's an array
of page indexes into the block generated from the random numbers

> +    unsigned int sample_pages_count;
> +    unsigned int sample_dirty_count;
> +    uint8_t *hash_result;

If I understand, this is an array of hashes end-to-end for
all the pages in this RAMBlock?

Dave

> +};
> +
>  void *get_dirtyrate_thread(void *arg);
>  #endif
>  
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
> 
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK