On Thu, 2022-07-07 at 15:56 -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 04:50:47PM -0300, Leonardo Bras Soares Passos wrote:
> > > I also think we should squash
> > > patch 2/3 as patch 3 only started to provide meaningful values.
> >
> > IIRC Previously in zero-copy-send implementation, I was asked to keep the
> > property/capability in a separated patch in order to make it easier to
> > review.
> > So I thought it would be helpful now.
>
> Ah, that's fine then.
>
> > > > diff --git a/monitor/hmp-cmds.c b/monitor/hmp-cmds.c
> > > > index ca98df0495..5f3be9e405 100644
> > > > --- a/monitor/hmp-cmds.c
> > > > +++ b/monitor/hmp-cmds.c
> > > > @@ -307,6 +307,10 @@ void hmp_info_migrate(Monitor *mon, const QDict
> > > > *qdict)
> > > > monitor_printf(mon, "postcopy ram: %" PRIu64 " kbytes\n",
> > > > info->ram->postcopy_bytes >> 10);
> > > > }
> > > > + if (info->ram->dirty_sync_missed_zero_copy) {
> > > > + monitor_printf(mon, "missed zero-copy on: %" PRIu64 "
> > > > iterations\n",
> > > > + info->ram->dirty_sync_missed_zero_copy);
> > >
> > > I suggest we don't call it "iterations" because it's not the generic mean
> > > of iterations.
> >
> > Yeah, I thought that too, but I could not think on anything better.
> > What do you suggest instead?
>
> "Zero-copy-send fallbacks happened: xxx times\n"?
Oh, yeah, that will work.
I was thinking on keeping the pattern and ended up thinking what was the correct
unit. But this is much simpler and work better.
Best regards,
Leo
>
