> On 2016/1/15 18:24, Li, Liang Z wrote: > >> It seems that this patch is incorrect, if the no-zero pages are > >> zeroed again during !ram_bulk_stage, we didn't send the new zeroed > >> page, there will be an error. > >> > > > > If not in ram_bulk_stage, still send the header, could you explain why it's > wrong? > > > > Liang > > > > I have made a mistake, and yes, this patch can speed up the live migration > time, especially when there are many zero pages, it will be more obvious. > I like this idea. Did you test it with postcopy ? Does it break postcopy ? >
Not yet, I saw Dave's comment's, it will beak post copy, it's not hard to fix this. A more important thing is Paolo's comments, I don't know in which case this patch will break LM. Do you have any idea about this? Hope that QEMU don't write data to the block 'pc.ram'. Liang > Thanks, > zhanghailiang >
