From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44060) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm1pC-0006Bu-Lz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:35:44 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm1p3-0000HZ-FF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:35:38 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62102) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm1p3-0000HV-7r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:35:29 -0500 From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: <87d2y4qj2t.fsf@elfo.mitica> (Juan Quintela's message of "Fri, 21 Dec 2012 02:39:54 +0100") References: <1356044532-8511-1-git-send-email-quintela@redhat.com> <87ehikmeqj.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <87d2y4qj2t.fsf@elfo.mitica> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:35:26 +0100 Message-ID: <87y5grpoq9.fsf@elfo.mitica> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/34] migration thread and queue Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Juan Quintela wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Juan Quintela writes: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> Changes for yesterday: >>> - Paolo Acked the series >>> - Rebaso on top of today git (only conflicts were due to header re-shuffle) >>> >>> Please pull. >>> >>> [20121219] >>> >>> This is my queue for migration-thread and patches associated. This >>> integrates review comments & code for Paolo. This is the subset from >>> both approachs that we agreed with. rest of patches need more review >>> and are not here. >> >> This breaks migration. Here's my test case: >> >> #!/bin/sh >> >> gzip -d -c lidb.ssmall.img.gz | \ >> ~/build/qemu/x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -cdrom \ >> ~/isos/OCDC-lucid-Test-Drive-20110523_140333.iso -enable-kvm -m 2G \ >> -incoming exec:dd >> >> With lidb.ssmall.img.gz being generated from a 'migrate exec:dd of=...' >> from qemu.git just a week or two ago. >> >> I can't bisect tonight but can attempt to tomorrow. How has this been >> tested? > > I have tested with tcp, load/not-load with guests form 4GB to 16GB RAM. > Will test tomorrow with your test case. I didn't tested exec:, though. This is failing to me with master, nothing to do with the changes on this thread. Investigating what is going on. Later, Juan.