From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52966)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Tjnup-00007y-EK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:20:16 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Tjndg-0008UN-Vw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:02:50 -0500
Received: from mx3-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.24]:33373)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Tjndg-0008UI-K9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:02:32 -0500
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:02:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1941762316.24986459.1355562148249.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <50CB6C7C.6000403@dlhnet.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] big wait check in ram_save_iterate()
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Lieven <pl@dlhnet.de>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com


> is the check for spending > 50ms in the loop still necessary in qemu
> 1.3.0?

Yes, it helps finding the available bandwidth and tuning the downtime of
migration.

Paolo