From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43235 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PNeUq-0006RT-4i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:41:08 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1PNRNv-0003F3-0U
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:40:47 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25813)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1PNRNu-0002mR-KL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:40:46 -0500
From: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CF45C5B.9080507@codemonkey.ws> (Anthony Liguori's message of
	"Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:07:23 -0600")
References: <cover.1290552026.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<d9aa9491982ed4cd5bdaa66d6ca09ede41e7d878.1290552026.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<4CF45C5B.9080507@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:40:34 +0100
Message-ID: <m3vd3evpr1.fsf@trasno.mitica>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 08/10] Count nanoseconds with uint64_t not
	doubles
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 11/23/2010 05:03 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> From: Juan Quintela<quintela@trasno.org>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela<quintela@trasno.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela<quintela@redhat.com>
>>    
>
> Why?

I needed the precision for the timestamp.  Nanoseconds is an "integer"
property, not a float value.  And ferther more, until last line, we are
using a variable named "bwidth" to measure times.

Later, Juan.

> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
>> ---
>>   arch_init.c |    7 ++++---
>>   1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch_init.c b/arch_init.c
>> index 9e941a0..d32aaae 100644
>> --- a/arch_init.c
>> +++ b/arch_init.c
>> @@ -216,6 +216,7 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque)
>>   {
>>       ram_addr_t addr;
>>       uint64_t bytes_transferred_last;
>> +    uint64_t t0;
>>       double bwidth = 0;
>>
>>       if (stage<  0) {
>> @@ -258,7 +259,7 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque)
>>       }
>>
>>       bytes_transferred_last = bytes_transferred;
>> -    bwidth = qemu_get_clock_ns(rt_clock);
>> +    t0 = qemu_get_clock_ns(rt_clock);
>>
>>       while (!qemu_file_rate_limit(f)) {
>>           int bytes_sent;
>> @@ -270,8 +271,8 @@ int ram_save_live(Monitor *mon, QEMUFile *f, int stage, void *opaque)
>>           }
>>       }
>>
>> -    bwidth = qemu_get_clock_ns(rt_clock) - bwidth;
>> -    bwidth = (bytes_transferred - bytes_transferred_last) / bwidth;
>> +    t0 = qemu_get_clock_ns(rt_clock) - t0;
>> +    bwidth = (bytes_transferred - bytes_transferred_last) / t0;
>>
>>       /* if we haven't transferred anything this round, force expected_time to a
>>        * a very high value, but without crashing */
>>