From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42234) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yumml-0001g8-Iu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 15:02:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yummf-0001Pi-L4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 15:02:39 -0400 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com ([129.33.205.207]:50142) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yummf-0001PY-FB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 15:02:33 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 19 May 2015 15:02:33 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.29]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3596E8047 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 14:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av05.pok.ibm.com (d01av05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.195]) by b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t4JJ2TfS40566826 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 19:02:29 GMT Received: from d01av05.pok.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d01av05.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t4JJ2ThR024188 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 15:02:29 -0400 Message-ID: <555B88CF.90704@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 14:02:39 -0500 From: "Michael R. Hines" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1429545445-28216-1-git-send-email-dgilbert@redhat.com> <1429545445-28216-9-git-send-email-dgilbert@redhat.com> <555B85B4.6070903@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150519185503.GI2127@work-vm> In-Reply-To: <20150519185503.GI2127@work-vm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/10] Rework ram block hash List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Cc: amit.shah@redhat.com, arei.gonglei@huawei.com, mrhines@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com On 05/19/2015 01:55 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >> I would like to keep the ramblock list directly addressable by hash >> on both sides, because, as I mentioned earlier, we want as much >> flexibility in registering RAMBlock memory as possible by being >> able to add or delete arbitrary blocks int the list at anytime during >> a migration. >> >> I will try to get the patchset that allows anyone to register memory >> for transfer out as soon as I can. > Hmm OK, I think I can rework that to regenerate the hash; it's a little > difficult without knowing how you're intending to use it. > > Dave We can use the RAMBlock name as a key to the hash, right? I see a "future" where storage replication also uses RDMA, (not that I'm volunteering to write it), but I don't want to lose the ability for arbitrary QEMU callers to be able to register/unregister ramblocks dynamically. - Michae