From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37600) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tjpn4-0005aO-E1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 06:20:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tjpn2-0005ms-31 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 06:20:22 -0500 Received: from ssl.dlhnet.de ([91.198.192.8]:49813 helo=ssl.dlh.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tjpn1-0005me-SM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 06:20:20 -0500 Message-ID: <50CC5CF2.2040606@dlhnet.de> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:20:18 +0100 From: Peter Lieven MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1941762316.24986459.1355562148249.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1941762316.24986459.1355562148249.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] big wait check in ram_save_iterate() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com Am 15.12.2012 10:02, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > >> is the check for spending > 50ms in the loop still necessary in qemu >> 1.3.0? > > Yes, it helps finding the available bandwidth and tuning the downtime of > migration. Aha, okay. But then it should also be added to block migration, shoudn't it? I tested it in qemu-kvm 1.2.0 and it help to increase responsiveness if the I/O latency on the storage is high. Peter > > Paolo >