From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42422)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jasowang@redhat.com>) id 1avxqZ-0000ZF-Kd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 22:08:00 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jasowang@redhat.com>) id 1avxqU-0001nP-LQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 22:07:59 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54842)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jasowang@redhat.com>) id 1avxqU-0001n3-GS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 22:07:54 -0400
References: <1460977906-25218-1-git-send-email-zhangchen.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<1460977906-25218-4-git-send-email-zhangchen.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<5721C2AE.6080305@redhat.com> <5721E66F.5070805@cn.fujitsu.com>
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <5722C1F5.60407@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:07:49 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5721E66F.5070805@cn.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH V3 3/4] colo-compare: introduce packet
 comparison thread
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: Zhang Chen <zhangchen.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>, qemu devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Cc: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com>, Gui jianfeng <guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>, Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>, zhanghailiang <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>, Yang Hongyang <hongyang.yang@easystack.cn>, "eddie.dong" <eddie.dong@intel.com>, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>



On 04/28/2016 06:31 PM, Zhang Chen wrote:
>>> +/*
>>> + * called from the compare thread on the primary
>>> + * for compare connection
>>> + */
>>> +static void colo_compare_connection(void *opaque, void *user_data)
>>> +{
>>> +    Connection *conn = opaque;
>>> +    Packet *pkt = NULL;
>>> +    GList *result = NULL;
>>> +    int ret;
>>> +
>>> +    qemu_mutex_lock(&conn->list_lock);
>>> +    while (!g_queue_is_empty(&conn->primary_list) &&
>>> +           !g_queue_is_empty(&conn->secondary_list)) {
>>> +        pkt = g_queue_pop_head(&conn->primary_list);
>>> +        result = g_queue_find_custom(&conn->secondary_list,
>>> +                              pkt,
>>> (GCompareFunc)colo_packet_compare_all);
>>> +
>>> +        if (result) {
>>> +            ret = compare_chr_send(pkt->s->chr_out, pkt->data,
>>> pkt->size);
>>> +            if (ret < 0) {
>>> +                error_report("colo_send_primary_packet failed");
>>> +            }
>>> +            trace_colo_compare_main("packet same and release packet");
>>> +            g_queue_remove(&conn->secondary_list, result->data);
>>> +        } else {
>>> +            trace_colo_compare_main("packet different");
>>> +            g_queue_push_head(&conn->primary_list, pkt);
>> Is this possible that the packet from secondary has not been arrived on
>> time? If yes, do we still need to notify the checkpoint here?
>
> Yes,the packet of secondary may not arrived.
> we will hold primary packet to next periodic checkpoint
> to flush it. and more, I consider to set a timer
> to flush timeout(200ms???) packet like Dave's branch.
>
>
> Thanks
> zhangchen 

I was wondering maybe you can merge or unify all other changes from
Dave's branch?