From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:36490)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1RDAVj-0006ib-LL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 03:42:56 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1RDAVi-0004ux-LD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 03:42:55 -0400
Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:62782)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1RDAVi-0004uh-Bb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 03:42:54 -0400
Received: by wwg14 with SMTP id 14so7414248wwg.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E92A1FB.70706@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:42:51 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20111009235629.GB9542@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20111009235629.GB9542@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] qemu-file: output data directly if
	possible
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: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 10/10/2011 01:56 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> qemu file currently always buffers up data before writing it out.
> At least for memory this is probably not a good idea:
> writing out to file would be cheaper. Let's do
> that if we can, which should be the common case. If we can't, buffer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<mst@redhat.com>
>
> ---
>
> Completely untested, this is just thinking aloud.
> Shouldn't the below save us a data copy in the
> common case, helping speed up migration?

The problem here is qemu_put_byte and friends, where the indirection of 
a function call would probably slow things down.  In the common case, 
qemu_put_byte is called a lot and f->buf_index would not be zero.  The 
way to go would probably be to merge QEMUFile and QEMUBufferedFile's two 
buffering layers, which also removes a copy.

Paolo