+9
−9
Loading
As Peter pointed out: | - xbzrle_counters.cache_miss is done in save_xbzrle_page(), so it's | per-guest-page granularity | | - RAMState.iterations is done for each ram_find_and_save_block(), so | it's per-host-page granularity | | An example is that when we migrate a 2M huge page in the guest, we | will only increase the RAMState.iterations by 1 (since | ram_find_and_save_block() will be called once), but we might increase | xbzrle_counters.cache_miss for 2M/4K=512 times (we'll call | save_xbzrle_page() that many times) if all the pages got cache miss. | Then IMHO the cache miss rate will be 512/1=51200% (while it should | actually be just 100% cache miss). And he also suggested as xbzrle_counters.cache_miss_rate is the only user of rs->iterations we can adapt it to count target guest page numbers After that, rename 'iterations' to 'target_page_count' to better reflect its meaning Suggested-by:Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> Reviewed-by:
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> Reviewed-by:
Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> Signed-off-by:
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@tencent.com> Message-Id: <20180903092644.25812-3-xiaoguangrong@tencent.com> Signed-off-by:
Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> Signed-off-by:
Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>