Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/24/2010 04:52 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>>
From: Juan Quintela
>>
diff --git a/buffered_file.h b/buffered_file.h
index 98d3
On 11/30/2010 08:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:02:56AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
If we're burning excess CPU walking a 100MB bitmap, then let's fix
that problem. Stopping every 1MB worth of the bitmap to do other
work just papers over the real problem (that
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:40:41PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Basically our bitmap handling code is "exponential" on memory size,
I didn't realize this. What makes it exponential?
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:40:41PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Basically our bitmap handling code is "exponential" on memory size,
>
> I didn't realize this. What makes it exponential?
Well, 1st of all, it is "exponential" as you measure it.
stalls by default are
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 12:04 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/30/2010 10:32 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>>
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:40:41PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>
>
On 11/30/2010 12:04 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/30/2010 10:32 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:40:41PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
Basically our bitmap handling code is "exponential" on m
On 11/30/2010 01:15 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/30/2010 12:04 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/30/2010 10:32 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
"Michael S. Tsirkin"wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:40:41P
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 01:15 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
At the end of the ram_save_live(). This was the reason that I put the
information there.
for the 24mins stall (I don't have that machine anymore) I had less
"exact" measurements. It was the amount tha
On 11/30/2010 05:56 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
No, I benchmarked against two workloads:
a- idle guest (because it was faster to test)
b- busy guest (each test takes forever, that is the reason that I tested
last).
So, I don't agree with that.
But in both cases, it's a large memory guest wher
On 11/30/2010 10:32 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:40:41PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
Basically our bitmap handling code is "exponential" on memory size,
I didn't realize this. What makes it exponential?
Well, 1st of a
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:02:56AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> If we're burning excess CPU walking a 100MB bitmap, then let's fix
> that problem. Stopping every 1MB worth of the bitmap to do other
> work just papers over the real problem (that we're walking 100MB
> bitmap).
Just using a bit p
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 05:56 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> No, I benchmarked against two workloads:
>> a- idle guest (because it was faster to test)
>> b- busy guest (each test takes forever, that is the reason that I tested
>> last).
>>
>> So, I don't agree with that.
>>
>
> But
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 10:32 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:40:41PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>>
Basically our bitmap handling code is "exponential" on memory size,
>>> I didn't realize this.
On 11/24/2010 04:52 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
From: Juan Quintela
diff --git a/buffered_file.h b/buffered_file.h
index 98d358b..a728316 100644
--- a/buffered_file.h
+++ b/buffered_f
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> >> From: Juan Quintela
>>
>> >> diff --git a/buffered_file.h b/buffered_file.h
>> >> index 98d358b..
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:13:26PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> >> From: Juan Quintela
> >>
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> From: Juan Quintela
>
> >> diff --git a/buffered_file.h b/buffered_file.h
> >> index 98d358b..a728316 100644
> >> --- a/buffered_fi
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> From: Juan Quintela
>> diff --git a/buffered_file.h b/buffered_file.h
>> index 98d358b..a728316 100644
>> --- a/buffered_file.h
>> +++ b/buffered_file.h
>> @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ typedef void (BufferedPutR
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> From: Juan Quintela
>
> This time is each time that buffered_file ticks happen
>
> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela
> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela
> ---
> buffered_file.c |6 --
> buffered_file.h |2 ++
> 2 files changed
19 matches
Mail list logo
