On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 10:22:43AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> <gudkov.and...@huawei.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 07:36:33PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> Andrei Gudkov <gudkov.and...@huawei.com> wrote:
> >> > Collect number of dirty pages for progresseively increasing time
> >> > periods starting with 125ms up to number of seconds specified with
> >> > calc-dirty-rate. Report through qmp and hmp: 1) vector of dirty page
> >> > measurements, 2) page size, 3) total number of VM pages, 4) number
> >> > of sampled pages.
> >> >
> >> > 3 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/migration/dirtyrate.c b/migration/dirtyrate.c
> >> > index acba3213a3..4491bbe91a 100644
> >> > --- a/migration/dirtyrate.c
> >> > +++ b/migration/dirtyrate.c
> >> > @@ -224,6 +224,7 @@ static struct DirtyRateInfo
> >> > *query_dirty_rate_info(void)
> >> > info->calc_time = DirtyStat.calc_time;
> >> > info->sample_pages = DirtyStat.sample_pages;
> >> > info->mode = dirtyrate_mode;
> >> > + info->page_size = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE;
> >>
> >> I thought we exported this trough ""info migrate"
> >> but we do it only if we are in the middle of a migration. Perhaps we
> >> should print it always.
> >
> > So, which one do you prefer? To keep it here or to make "info migrate"
> > print it always (or both)?
>
> info migrate to print it allways. Thanks.
I looked into "info migrate". To print page size irregarding migration status,
all other 17 fields of MigrationInfo.ram will have to be made optional.
Atop of that, it feels like that page size doesn't belong to "info migrate"
since it is the only one "static" value, while all others are "dynamic"
counters.
I think I found a better place where page size can be reported --
query-memory-size-summary. After the change it would be as following:
{"execute": "query-memory-size-summary"}
{"return": {"page-size": 4096, "base-memory": 34359738368, "plugged-memory":
0}}
What do you think about it?
