On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:20:47PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 06/14/2016 09:25 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > We should not take into account zero blocks for delay calculations. > > They are not read and thus IO throttling is not required. In the > > other case VM migration with 16 Tb QCOW2 disk with 4 Gb of data takes > > days. > > > > Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <d...@openvz.org> > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> > > CC: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> > > CC: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > > CC: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > > CC: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> > > CC: Jeff Cody <jc...@redhat.com> > > CC: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> > > --- > > block/mirror.c | 7 +++++-- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Seems reasonable, but I'll let others more familiar with throttling give > the final say.
There is a bounce buffer fallback when !drv->bdrv_co_pwrite_zeroes. In that case we need to account for the bytes transferred. I don't see where the patch takes this into account.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature