From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36241 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PNeWq-0002MD-4X
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:43:13 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PNR61-0005Ii-FH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:22:19 -0500
Received: from mail-qw0-f67.google.com ([209.85.216.67]:53663)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PNR61-0005IO-Cw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:22:17 -0500
Received: by qwf6 with SMTP id 6so172202qwf.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:22:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4CF50891.9000604@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:22:09 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1290552026.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<a12e21918775e0c0ae23c373be1e35060b52031b.1290552026.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<20101124104035.GB23493@redhat.com>
	<m3wro3dmdy.fsf@trasno.mitica> <4CF46012.2060804@codemonkey.ws>
	<m3hbezvxcw.fsf@trasno.mitica> <4CF50410.3080305@codemonkey.ws>
	<20101130141150.GB20536@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101130141150.GB20536@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 02/10] Add buffered_file_internal constant
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>

On 11/30/2010 08:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:02:56AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>    
>> If we're burning excess CPU walking a 100MB bitmap, then let's fix
>> that problem.  Stopping every 1MB worth of the bitmap to do other
>> work just papers over the real problem (that we're walking 100MB
>> bitmap).
>>      
> Just using a bit per page will already make the problem 8x smaller,
> won't it?  Is that enough to avoid the need for a new kernel interface?
>    

I don't know, but it's definitely a good thing to try.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori