Am 08.04.2013 um 18:18 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
Il 08/04/2013 18:03, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
Looks fine on the block side. Perhaps Orit, Juan, or Paolo can
double-check the migration side.
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi stefa...@redhat.com
Looks good, but given there are
Il 09/04/2013 10:04, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
Looks good, but given there are patches to fix it, I'm not sure it's
worth the trouble...
Shouldn't this perform even a little better? And we should get rid of
non-vectored interfaces in the block layer anyway.
Yes, if you have a very fast disk
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:08:22AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 09/04/2013 10:04, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
Looks good, but given there are patches to fix it, I'm not sure it's
worth the trouble...
Shouldn't this perform even a little better? And we should get rid of
non-vectored
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 09:27:52PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
This gives us back reasonable savevm performance, which regressed in
commit 500f0061.
Kevin Wolf (4):
block: Introduce bdrv_writev_vmstate
savevm: Implement block_writev_buffer()
block: Introduce bdrv_pwritev() for
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 09:27:52PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
This gives us back reasonable savevm performance, which regressed in
commit 500f0061.
Kevin Wolf (4):
block: Introduce bdrv_writev_vmstate
savevm: Implement block_writev_buffer()
block: Introduce bdrv_pwritev() for
Il 08/04/2013 18:03, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
Looks fine on the block side. Perhaps Orit, Juan, or Paolo can
double-check the migration side.
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi stefa...@redhat.com
Looks good, but given there are patches to fix it, I'm not sure it's
worth the trouble...
Paolo
