From patchwork Tue Jan 22 15:05:42 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Balamuruhan S X-Patchwork-Id: 10776149 Return-Path: Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.125]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7AF6C2 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:11:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4992BB72 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:11:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix, from userid 486) id 49B152BB87; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:11:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37FFD2BB79 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47596 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gm1Sa-000845-8w for patchwork-qemu-devel@patchwork.kernel.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:11:44 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:48419) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gm16M-0005jZ-BQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:48:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gm16I-0006Ow-65 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:48:44 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:57286) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gm16F-0006A2-SA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:48:41 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x0MF5AOB047823 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:06:08 -0500 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2q658q8ucs-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:06:08 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:06:06 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:06:02 -0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x0MF626V56623326 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:06:02 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84DDA4054; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:06:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF23A4065; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:06:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dhcp-9-109-245-114.in.ibm.com (unknown [9.124.35.98]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:06:00 +0000 (GMT) From: bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 20:35:42 +0530 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.14.5 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19012215-0020-0000-0000-00000309DFBF X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19012215-0021-0000-0000-0000215B1566 Message-Id: <20190122150543.16889-1-bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-01-22_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901220118 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 148.163.156.1 Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/1] migration: calculate expected_downtime considering redirtied ram X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Balamuruhan S , dgilbert@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+patchwork-qemu-devel=patchwork.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP From: Balamuruhan S Based on the discussion with Dave and David Gibson earlier with respect to expected_downtime calculation, https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-04/msg02418.html got suggestions that the calculation is of not accurate and we need to consider the ram that gets redirtied during the time when we would have actually transferred ram in the current iteration. so I have came up with a calculation by considering the ram that could get redirtied during the current iteration at the time we would have transferred the remaining ram in current iteration. By this way, the total ram to be transferred will be remaining ram + redirtied ram and dividing with bandwidth would yield us better expected_downtime value. Please help to review and suggest about this approach. Balamuruhan S (1): migration: calculate expected_downtime considering redirtied ram migration/migration.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)