From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF014C47082 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 19:20:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A6D360FE5 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 19:20:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7A6D360FE5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:34806 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqhHP-00081T-Hu for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 15:20:51 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40836) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqhGW-0007Mw-Iq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 15:19:56 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:58779) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqhGT-0003Lj-S7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 15:19:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1623179992; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=xB7OGw12dwQY2leDwaHQySTfcbRthqn3lqdYJN9foBw=; b=dnpoGblsWtAJKV4xJ3R8Wedi3HV15EsrOdsjasBPiFwHSa7GUelYueCj9EELHmo5+e4/aS PArS+v9Zii6VYMVlZLtnkfWB7JSHI2vsu9cSww5ck8UFYTeJ/DRwsfY4Z9IRQvnbmj+25T tQaF9oh1oNnz6d+dlrGfZwQnLdFCCG8= Received: from mail-qk1-f197.google.com (mail-qk1-f197.google.com [209.85.222.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-182--LJYT1M_O82KRmNwqFUf8A-1; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 15:19:50 -0400 X-MC-Unique: -LJYT1M_O82KRmNwqFUf8A-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id t131-20020a37aa890000b02903a9f6c1e8bfso13216543qke.10 for ; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 12:19:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=xB7OGw12dwQY2leDwaHQySTfcbRthqn3lqdYJN9foBw=; b=b8loBzKf99fDP6oLMvs5rmRNm6Lc/Sov5BR+ihrFYxwEbjPvmyZAZqGwBfSVSIFT+C 83kW4wdCecgF3CM+/hxzuvkDSW9GwXRG21CM9FLaMYgtPqE+jZDRE4oU0UMeH6YMg3oC 7bOXJ71Kgf78s6M2cc0TF6Q5iIOnELBjlw/mEgjku6LGqIlvNEzrujFMwA6I8vyw3RWi VcWLkXVFO6RV3lgSuD/W9Dg5gmWKpk+JaKI246BUKk1ZkIb8CaaJMXZfA8GpjJyZ23tQ d/kCmQfIBhzf2cxc+2qfSAwvjWpmXvuR+6MXbCr8XaDKKiWLRjF7syCV620lAFCUoT62 I7lg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532uGJzuzoBW9oSRSpKLTzYeaPWSbNqEZVvT+advskk8DGPiDm6C 2srfpE8jZHX/Hg4Z2Dg6c2c1ID7LYSyIUOvwH8HY2Jmz/fQ4VrfwF0NC7t+VZOwEJVD8GCtPsPE i9kH5ijRDFNaAcIw= X-Received: by 2002:a37:684c:: with SMTP id d73mr6875328qkc.35.1623179989624; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 12:19:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/jNQZrFQzCngMXagUQzqpnk9F3Gl5ql+Uwz2VlFn3FwU6EKFV0NaaYq6JGCziZNMc0Z43qw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:684c:: with SMTP id d73mr6875306qkc.35.1623179989397; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 12:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from t490s (bras-base-toroon474qw-grc-88-174-93-75-200.dsl.bell.ca. [174.93.75.200]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v28sm9370579qkg.22.2021.06.08.12.19.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 08 Jun 2021 12:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 15:19:47 -0400 From: Peter Xu To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Subject: Re: [PATCH] hmp: Add "calc_dirty_rate" and "info dirty_rate" cmds Message-ID: References: <20210601005708.189888-1-peterx@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=peterx@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=peterx@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -29 X-Spam_score: -3.0 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.197, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Chuan Zheng , Leonardo Bras Soares Passos , huangy81@chinatelecom.cn, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Juan Quintela Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 07:49:56PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Peter Xu (peterx@redhat.com) wrote: > > These two commands are missing when adding the QMP sister commands. Add them, > > so developers can play with them easier. > > > > Cc: Dr. David Alan Gilbert > > Cc: Juan Quintela > > Cc: Leonardo Bras Soares Passos > > Cc: Chuan Zheng > > Cc: huangy81@chinatelecom.cn > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu > > Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert > > > --- > > PS: I really doubt whether this is working as expected... I ran one 200MB/s > > workload inside, what I measured is 20MB/s with current algorithm... Sampling > > 512 pages out of 1G mem is not wise enough I guess, especially that assumes > > dirty workload is spread across the memories while it's normally not the case.. > > What size of address space did you dirty - was it 20MB? IIRC it was either 200M or 500M, based on a 1G small VM. -- Peter Xu