From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43032)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1S4vzB-0002kc-MF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 10:07:53 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1S4vz1-0005d8-P5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 10:07:33 -0500
Received: from mail-pw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:45406)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1S4vz1-0005cu-In
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 10:07:23 -0500
Received: by pbcuo5 with SMTP id uo5so5885369pbc.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 07:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F562824.5040507@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:07:16 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4F54F5F8.70105@redhat.com> <4F54F76B.70403@codemonkey.ws>
	<20120305143142.1a1a53e2@doriath.home>
	<20120305180958.GC20937@garlic.tlv.redhat.com>
	<4F550350.7030703@redhat.com> <4F55BE82.3030205@redhat.com>
	<20120306092427.35103975@doriath.home>
	<20120306131624.GC2240@garlic.redhat.com>
	<4F561661.7080805@codemonkey.ws>
	<20120306105342.5921e785@doriath.home>
	<20120306142309.GE2240@garlic.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120306142309.GE2240@garlic.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] console: add hw_screen_dump_async
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: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>

On 03/06/2012 08:23 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:53:42AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>
> So cutting off a part of the email is a good way to win arguments? cool
> trick.

It doesn't work as well if you acknowledge that was the motivation ;-) (j/k)

> I agree a reproducer is a good idea, but as I mentioned in the
> cut part, doing the update area without keeping the monitor waiting
> improves performance of the guest by letting it do io exits. Why is that
> a bad thing?

You say, "improves performance", but can you quantify that?

And why is screendump on the performance critical path in the first place? 
Having a small test case that demonstrates the problem (be it functional or 
performance) will help ground this discussion in concrete terms.

I think we need to step back and reexamine what the problem we're trying to 
solve is.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori