Balamuruhan S <bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size,
> using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com>
See my other mail on the thread, my understanding is that your change is
corret (TM).
Thanks, Juan.
> ---
> migration/migration.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
> index 58bd382730..4e43dc4f92 100644
> --- a/migration/migration.c
> +++ b/migration/migration.c
> @@ -2245,8 +2245,7 @@ static void migration_update_counters(MigrationState *s,
> * recalculate. 10000 is a small enough number for our purposes
> */
> if (ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate && transferred > 10000) {
> - s->expected_downtime = ram_counters.dirty_pages_rate *
> - qemu_target_page_size() / bandwidth;
> + s->expected_downtime = ram_bytes_remaining() / bandwidth;
> }
>
> qemu_file_reset_rate_limit(s->to_dst_file);
