On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:13:58PM +0800, Chao Fan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:37:30PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 01:29:43PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote: > >> Chao Fan <fanc.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >> > In hmp, dirty-bytes-rate is more friendly than dirty-pages-rate. > >> > It's also better for other tools to determine the cpu throttle > >> > value in different architecture. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Chao Fan <fanc.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> > >> > Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com> > >> > >> I agree with Daniel here, you can't change the meaning of a field. Look > >> at skipped pages. It is zero know because it is not used anymore, but > >> we can't drop it. > >> > >> I think it is better to expose page_size. We have now > >> > >> trasferred: bytes > >> total: bytes > >> duplicate: number of zero pages > >> skipped: always zero. > >> normal: number of normal pages > >> normal_bytes: the same in bytes > >> mbps: megabytes per second? I can't even remember this one > >> dirty_sync_count: number of times we have go through the whole memory > >> postcopy_requests = number of pages asked by postcopy faults? > >> dirty_pages_rate = pages by some kind of unit > >> > >> And we haven't yet started with compression or xbzrle. I think that the > >> best approach at this point is putting everything in pages except the > >> things that don't make sense. > >> > >> We can put everything on bytes, but then everything is HUGE. > >> > >> Anyways, what do libvirt/management apps preffer? > > > >Since we have many fields already which are reported as page counts, I > >think just adding page size would be preferrable to having twice as many > >fields reported duplicating bytes + pages. > > > >The only reason to favour duplicating all fields to report bytes, is if > >we needed to vary page size to deal with huge pages (eg if some reported > >pages were 4kb and other reported pages with 2MB). You can easily just > >scale huge pages counts to be "normal" pages for purpose of reporting > >though. > > I am wondering if it's OK to expose page_size in qmp or hmp, just like > a new command 'info page_size'. > If confirmed，I will make the new patch.
I'd suggest having it as a field of "info migrate" Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
