From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55879) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnmNv-0001Ov-LG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:21:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnmNr-0000ix-U2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:21:07 -0400 Received: from [59.151.112.132] (port=23903 helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnmNr-0000eI-IH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:21:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 21:20:25 +0800 From: Chao Fan Message-ID: <20170314132025.GB2473@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170314102747.31395-1-fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <87o9x4t51k.fsf@secure.mitica> <20170314123730.GO2652@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170314123730.GO2652@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Output dirty-bytes-rate instead of dirty-pages-rate List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: Juan Quintela , eblake@redhat.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, maozy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, Li Zhijian On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:37:30PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 01:29:43PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote: >> Chao Fan wrote: >> > In hmp, dirty-bytes-rate is more friendly than dirty-pages-rate. >> > It's also better for other tools to determine the cpu throttle >> > value in different architecture. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Chao Fan >> > Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian >> >> I agree with Daniel here, you can't change the meaning of a field. Look >> at skipped pages. It is zero know because it is not used anymore, but >> we can't drop it. >> >> I think it is better to expose page_size. We have now >> >> trasferred: bytes >> total: bytes >> duplicate: number of zero pages >> skipped: always zero. >> normal: number of normal pages >> normal_bytes: the same in bytes >> mbps: megabytes per second? I can't even remember this one >> dirty_sync_count: number of times we have go through the whole memory >> postcopy_requests = number of pages asked by postcopy faults? >> dirty_pages_rate = pages by some kind of unit >> >> And we haven't yet started with compression or xbzrle. I think that the >> best approach at this point is putting everything in pages except the >> things that don't make sense. >> >> We can put everything on bytes, but then everything is HUGE. >> >> Anyways, what do libvirt/management apps preffer? > >Since we have many fields already which are reported as page counts, I >think just adding page size would be preferrable to having twice as many >fields reported duplicating bytes + pages. OK. > >The only reason to favour duplicating all fields to report bytes, is if >we needed to vary page size to deal with huge pages (eg if some reported >pages were 4kb and other reported pages with 2MB). You can easily just >scale huge pages counts to be "normal" pages for purpose of reporting Thank you very much for your help! Thanks, Chao Fan >though. >Regards, >Daniel >-- >|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| >|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| >|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| > >