From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52383 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PNlun-0002nS-LV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:36:10 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1PNlum-00085e-DU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:36:05 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6204)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1PNlum-00085G-6N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:36:04 -0500
Message-ID: <4CF6412D.5030601@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:35:57 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1290552026.git.quintela@redhat.com>	<9b23b9b4cee242591bdb356c838a9cfb9af033c1.1290552026.git.quintela@redhat.com>	<4CF45D67.5010906@codemonkey.ws>
	<4CF4A478.8080209@redhat.com>	<4CF5008F.2090306@codemonkey.ws>
	<4CF5030B.40703@redhat.com>	<4CF50783.90402@codemonkey.ws>
	<4CF509C1.9@redhat.com>	<20101201102034.07eff649.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
	<m3pqtm1cqf.fsf@trasno.mitica>
In-Reply-To: <m3pqtm1cqf.fsf@trasno.mitica>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 09/10] Exit loop if we have been there too
	long
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: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
Cc: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>

On 12/01/2010 03:52 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >   - 512GB guest is really the target?
>
> no, problems exist with smaller amounts of RAM.  with 16GB guest it is
> trivial to get 1s stalls, 64GB guest, 3-4s, with more memory, migration
> is flaky to say the less.
>
> >   - how much cpu time can we use for these things?
>
> the problem here is that we are forced to walk the bitmap too many
> times, we want to do it less times.

How much time is spent walking bitmaps?  Are you sure this is the problem?

> >   - how many dirty pages do we have to care?
>
> default values and assuming 1Gigabit ethernet for ourselves ~9.5MB of
> dirty pages to have only 30ms of downtime.

1Gb/s * 30ms = 100 MB/s * 30 ms = 3 MB.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function