Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 11/12] ram: iterate phase

[Igor Mitsyanko <i.mitsyanko@gmail.com>]

On 6/28/2012 11:22 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> We only need to synchronize the bitmap when the number of dirty pages is low.
> Not every time that we call the function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
> ---
>   arch_init.c |    9 ++++++---
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch_init.c b/arch_init.c
> index fe843a7..8299c15 100644
> --- a/arch_init.c
> +++ b/arch_init.c
> @@ -348,8 +348,6 @@ static int ram_save_iterate(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque)
>       int i;
>       uint64_t expected_time;
>
> -    memory_global_sync_dirty_bitmap(get_system_memory());
> -
>       bytes_transferred_last = bytes_transferred;
>       bwidth = qemu_get_clock_ns(rt_clock);
>
> @@ -397,7 +395,12 @@ static int ram_save_iterate(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque)
>       DPRINTF("ram_save_live: expected(%ld) <= max(%ld)?\n", expected_time,
>               migrate_max_downtime());
>
> -    return expected_time <= migrate_max_downtime();
> +    if (expected_time <= migrate_max_downtime()) {
> +        memory_global_sync_dirty_bitmap(get_system_memory());
> +
> +        return expected_time <= migrate_max_downtime();

Shouldn't expected_time be recalculated after 
memory_global_sync_dirty_bitmap()?

> +    }
> +    return 0;
>   }
>
>   static int ram_save_complete(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque)
>