"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: > * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote: >> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote: >> >> We change the meaning of start to be the offset from the beggining of >> >> the block. >> > >> > s/beggining/beginning/ >> > >> > Why do this? >> > We have: >> > migration_bitmap_sync (all blocks) >> > migration_bitmap_sync_range - called per block >> > cpu_physical_memory_sync_dirty_bitmap >> > >> > Why keep migration_bitmap_sync_range having start/length as well >> > as the block >> > if you could just rename it to migration_bitmap_sync_block and >> > just give it the rb? >> > And since cpu_physical_memory_clear_dirty_range is lower level, >> > why give it >> > the rb? >> >> I did it on the previous series, then I remembered that I was not going >> to be able to sync only part of the range, as I will want in the future. >> >> If you preffer as an intermediate meassure to just move to blocks, I can >> do, but change is really small and not sure if it makes sense. > > OK then, but just comment it to say you want to. > I'm still not sure if cpu_physical_memory_clear_dirty_range should > have the RB; > it feels that it's lower level, kvm stuff rather than things that know > about RAMBlocks.
Bitmap is going to be there in the following patch. Not a lot that we can be done about that, no? Right now we have: - absolute address - RAMblock - byte offset inside block - byte offset of ramblock - Whole bitmaps (Migration, code and vga) - migration bitmaps This rseries move the migration bitmap inside the RAMBlock. And we have the RAMBlock in the caller. We could search for it there, but looks very inefficient. I am trying to change all the code to use: RAMblock pointer + target page offset inside ramblock So we need to do a lot less calculations. Later, Juan.
