* [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: always initial ram_counters for a new migration
@ 2019-07-30 5:36 Ivan Ren
2019-07-30 15:56 ` Juan Quintela
2019-08-01 2:21 ` Wei Yang
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ivan Ren @ 2019-07-30 5:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: quintela, dgilbert; +Cc: qemu-devel
From: Ivan Ren <ivanren@tencent.com>
This patch fix a multifd migration bug in migration speed calculation, this
problem can be reproduced as follows:
1. start a vm and give a heavy memory write stress to prevent the vm be
successfully migrated to destination
2. begin a migration with multifd
3. migrate for a long time [actually, this can be measured by transferred bytes]
4. migrate cancel
5. begin a new migration with multifd, the migration will directly run into
migration_completion phase
Reason as follows:
Migration update bandwidth and s->threshold_size in function
migration_update_counters after BUFFER_DELAY time:
current_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
transferred = current_bytes - s->iteration_initial_bytes;
time_spent = current_time - s->iteration_start_time;
bandwidth = (double)transferred / time_spent;
s->threshold_size = bandwidth * s->parameters.downtime_limit;
In multifd migration, migration_total_bytes function return
qemu_ftell(s->to_dst_file) + ram_counters.multifd_bytes.
s->iteration_initial_bytes will be initialized to 0 at every new migration,
but ram_counters is a global variable, and history migration data will be
accumulated. So if the ram_counters.multifd_bytes is big enough, it may lead
pending_size >= s->threshold_size become false in migration_iteration_run
after the first migration_update_counters.
Signed-off-by: Ivan Ren <ivanren@tencent.com>
---
migration/migration.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
migration/savevm.c | 1 +
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
index 8a607fe1e2..d35a6ae6f9 100644
--- a/migration/migration.c
+++ b/migration/migration.c
@@ -1908,6 +1908,11 @@ static bool migrate_prepare(MigrationState *s, bool blk, bool blk_inc,
}
migrate_init(s);
+ /*
+ * set ram_counters memory to zero for a
+ * new migration
+ */
+ memset(&ram_counters, 0, sizeof(ram_counters));
return true;
}
@@ -3187,6 +3192,10 @@ static void *migration_thread(void *opaque)
object_ref(OBJECT(s));
s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
+ /*
+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to match s->iteration_start_time.
+ */
+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
qemu_savevm_state_header(s->to_dst_file);
@@ -3252,7 +3261,11 @@ static void *migration_thread(void *opaque)
* breaking transferred_bytes and bandwidth calculation
*/
s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
- s->iteration_initial_bytes = 0;
+ /*
+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to current size to
+ * avoid historical data lead wrong bandwidth.
+ */
+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
}
current_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
diff --git a/migration/savevm.c b/migration/savevm.c
index 79ed44d475..480c511b19 100644
--- a/migration/savevm.c
+++ b/migration/savevm.c
@@ -1424,6 +1424,7 @@ static int qemu_savevm_state(QEMUFile *f, Error **errp)
}
migrate_init(ms);
+ memset(&ram_counters, 0, sizeof(ram_counters));
ms->to_dst_file = f;
qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
--
2.17.2 (Apple Git-113)
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: always initial ram_counters for a new migration
2019-07-30 5:36 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: always initial ram_counters for a new migration Ivan Ren
@ 2019-07-30 15:56 ` Juan Quintela
2019-08-01 2:21 ` Wei Yang
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Juan Quintela @ 2019-07-30 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ivan Ren; +Cc: dgilbert, qemu-devel
Ivan Ren <renyime@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Ivan Ren <ivanren@tencent.com>
>
> This patch fix a multifd migration bug in migration speed calculation, this
> problem can be reproduced as follows:
> 1. start a vm and give a heavy memory write stress to prevent the vm be
> successfully migrated to destination
> 2. begin a migration with multifd
> 3. migrate for a long time [actually, this can be measured by transferred bytes]
> 4. migrate cancel
> 5. begin a new migration with multifd, the migration will directly run into
> migration_completion phase
>
> Reason as follows:
>
> Migration update bandwidth and s->threshold_size in function
> migration_update_counters after BUFFER_DELAY time:
>
> current_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
> transferred = current_bytes - s->iteration_initial_bytes;
> time_spent = current_time - s->iteration_start_time;
> bandwidth = (double)transferred / time_spent;
> s->threshold_size = bandwidth * s->parameters.downtime_limit;
>
> In multifd migration, migration_total_bytes function return
> qemu_ftell(s->to_dst_file) + ram_counters.multifd_bytes.
> s->iteration_initial_bytes will be initialized to 0 at every new migration,
> but ram_counters is a global variable, and history migration data will be
> accumulated. So if the ram_counters.multifd_bytes is big enough, it may lead
> pending_size >= s->threshold_size become false in migration_iteration_run
> after the first migration_update_counters.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Ren <ivanren@tencent.com>
Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: always initial ram_counters for a new migration
2019-07-30 5:36 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: always initial ram_counters for a new migration Ivan Ren
2019-07-30 15:56 ` Juan Quintela
@ 2019-08-01 2:21 ` Wei Yang
2019-08-01 8:10 ` Ivan Ren
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Wei Yang @ 2019-08-01 2:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ivan Ren; +Cc: qemu-devel, dgilbert, quintela
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:36:32PM +0800, Ivan Ren wrote:
>From: Ivan Ren <ivanren@tencent.com>
>
>This patch fix a multifd migration bug in migration speed calculation, this
>problem can be reproduced as follows:
>1. start a vm and give a heavy memory write stress to prevent the vm be
> successfully migrated to destination
>2. begin a migration with multifd
>3. migrate for a long time [actually, this can be measured by transferred bytes]
>4. migrate cancel
>5. begin a new migration with multifd, the migration will directly run into
> migration_completion phase
>
>Reason as follows:
>
>Migration update bandwidth and s->threshold_size in function
>migration_update_counters after BUFFER_DELAY time:
>
> current_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
> transferred = current_bytes - s->iteration_initial_bytes;
> time_spent = current_time - s->iteration_start_time;
> bandwidth = (double)transferred / time_spent;
> s->threshold_size = bandwidth * s->parameters.downtime_limit;
>
>In multifd migration, migration_total_bytes function return
>qemu_ftell(s->to_dst_file) + ram_counters.multifd_bytes.
>s->iteration_initial_bytes will be initialized to 0 at every new migration,
>but ram_counters is a global variable, and history migration data will be
>accumulated. So if the ram_counters.multifd_bytes is big enough, it may lead
>pending_size >= s->threshold_size become false in migration_iteration_run
>after the first migration_update_counters.
>
>Signed-off-by: Ivan Ren <ivanren@tencent.com>
>---
> migration/migration.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> migration/savevm.c | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
>index 8a607fe1e2..d35a6ae6f9 100644
>--- a/migration/migration.c
>+++ b/migration/migration.c
>@@ -1908,6 +1908,11 @@ static bool migrate_prepare(MigrationState *s, bool blk, bool blk_inc,
> }
>
> migrate_init(s);
>+ /*
>+ * set ram_counters memory to zero for a
>+ * new migration
>+ */
>+ memset(&ram_counters, 0, sizeof(ram_counters));
>
> return true;
> }
>@@ -3187,6 +3192,10 @@ static void *migration_thread(void *opaque)
>
> object_ref(OBJECT(s));
> s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
>+ /*
>+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to match s->iteration_start_time.
>+ */
>+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
Is this one necessary? We have sent out nothing yet.
>
> qemu_savevm_state_header(s->to_dst_file);
>
>@@ -3252,7 +3261,11 @@ static void *migration_thread(void *opaque)
> * breaking transferred_bytes and bandwidth calculation
> */
> s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
>- s->iteration_initial_bytes = 0;
>+ /*
>+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to current size to
>+ * avoid historical data lead wrong bandwidth.
>+ */
>+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
> }
>
> current_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
>diff --git a/migration/savevm.c b/migration/savevm.c
>index 79ed44d475..480c511b19 100644
>--- a/migration/savevm.c
>+++ b/migration/savevm.c
>@@ -1424,6 +1424,7 @@ static int qemu_savevm_state(QEMUFile *f, Error **errp)
> }
>
> migrate_init(ms);
>+ memset(&ram_counters, 0, sizeof(ram_counters));
> ms->to_dst_file = f;
>
> qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
>--
>2.17.2 (Apple Git-113)
>
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: always initial ram_counters for a new migration
2019-08-01 2:21 ` Wei Yang
@ 2019-08-01 8:10 ` Ivan Ren
2019-08-02 0:49 ` Wei Yang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ivan Ren @ 2019-08-01 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wei Yang; +Cc: qemu-devel, dgilbert, quintela
>> s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
>>+ /*
>>+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to match
s->iteration_start_time.
>>+ */
>>+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
>
>Is this one necessary? We have sent out nothing yet.
Yes, currently nothing has been sent yet at this point.
Is that better to always match the update of iteration_initial_bytes
and iteration_start_time in a explicit way to avoid some potential missing?
Thanks.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:21 AM Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:36:32PM +0800, Ivan Ren wrote:
> >From: Ivan Ren <ivanren@tencent.com>
> >
> >This patch fix a multifd migration bug in migration speed calculation,
> this
> >problem can be reproduced as follows:
> >1. start a vm and give a heavy memory write stress to prevent the vm be
> > successfully migrated to destination
> >2. begin a migration with multifd
> >3. migrate for a long time [actually, this can be measured by transferred
> bytes]
> >4. migrate cancel
> >5. begin a new migration with multifd, the migration will directly run
> into
> > migration_completion phase
> >
> >Reason as follows:
> >
> >Migration update bandwidth and s->threshold_size in function
> >migration_update_counters after BUFFER_DELAY time:
> >
> > current_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
> > transferred = current_bytes - s->iteration_initial_bytes;
> > time_spent = current_time - s->iteration_start_time;
> > bandwidth = (double)transferred / time_spent;
> > s->threshold_size = bandwidth * s->parameters.downtime_limit;
> >
> >In multifd migration, migration_total_bytes function return
> >qemu_ftell(s->to_dst_file) + ram_counters.multifd_bytes.
> >s->iteration_initial_bytes will be initialized to 0 at every new
> migration,
> >but ram_counters is a global variable, and history migration data will be
> >accumulated. So if the ram_counters.multifd_bytes is big enough, it may
> lead
> >pending_size >= s->threshold_size become false in migration_iteration_run
> >after the first migration_update_counters.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Ivan Ren <ivanren@tencent.com>
> >---
> > migration/migration.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> > migration/savevm.c | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
> >index 8a607fe1e2..d35a6ae6f9 100644
> >--- a/migration/migration.c
> >+++ b/migration/migration.c
> >@@ -1908,6 +1908,11 @@ static bool migrate_prepare(MigrationState *s,
> bool blk, bool blk_inc,
> > }
> >
> > migrate_init(s);
> >+ /*
> >+ * set ram_counters memory to zero for a
> >+ * new migration
> >+ */
> >+ memset(&ram_counters, 0, sizeof(ram_counters));
> >
> > return true;
> > }
> >@@ -3187,6 +3192,10 @@ static void *migration_thread(void *opaque)
> >
> > object_ref(OBJECT(s));
> > s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
> >+ /*
> >+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to match
> s->iteration_start_time.
> >+ */
> >+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
>
> Is this one necessary? We have sent out nothing yet.
>
> >
> > qemu_savevm_state_header(s->to_dst_file);
> >
> >@@ -3252,7 +3261,11 @@ static void *migration_thread(void *opaque)
> > * breaking transferred_bytes and bandwidth calculation
> > */
> > s->iteration_start_time =
> qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
> >- s->iteration_initial_bytes = 0;
> >+ /*
> >+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to current size to
> >+ * avoid historical data lead wrong bandwidth.
> >+ */
> >+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
> > }
> >
> > current_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
> >diff --git a/migration/savevm.c b/migration/savevm.c
> >index 79ed44d475..480c511b19 100644
> >--- a/migration/savevm.c
> >+++ b/migration/savevm.c
> >@@ -1424,6 +1424,7 @@ static int qemu_savevm_state(QEMUFile *f, Error
> **errp)
> > }
> >
> > migrate_init(ms);
> >+ memset(&ram_counters, 0, sizeof(ram_counters));
> > ms->to_dst_file = f;
> >
> > qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
> >--
> >2.17.2 (Apple Git-113)
> >
>
> --
> Wei Yang
> Help you, Help me
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: always initial ram_counters for a new migration
2019-08-01 8:10 ` Ivan Ren
@ 2019-08-02 0:49 ` Wei Yang
2019-08-02 5:46 ` Ivan Ren
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Wei Yang @ 2019-08-02 0:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ivan Ren; +Cc: quintela, Wei Yang, dgilbert, qemu-devel
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 04:10:34PM +0800, Ivan Ren wrote:
>>> s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
>>>+ /*
>>>+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to match
>s->iteration_start_time.
>>>+ */
>>>+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
>>
>>Is this one necessary? We have sent out nothing yet.
>
>Yes, currently nothing has been sent yet at this point.
>
>Is that better to always match the update of iteration_initial_bytes
>and iteration_start_time in a explicit way to avoid some potential missing?
>
You may get some point. Well after a close look, we may find other potential
problem.
1. To be consistency, we need to update iteration_initial_pages too.
So my opinion is to wrap the update of these three counters into a helper
function. So each time all of them.
2. In function ram_get_total_transferred_pages, do we missed multifd_bytes?
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: always initial ram_counters for a new migration
2019-08-02 0:49 ` Wei Yang
@ 2019-08-02 5:46 ` Ivan Ren
2019-08-02 5:59 ` Wei Yang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ivan Ren @ 2019-08-02 5:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wei Yang; +Cc: quintela, qemu-devel, dgilbert
>>>> s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
>>>>+ /*
>>>>+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to match
>>s->iteration_start_time.
>>>>+ */
>>>>+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
>>>
>>>Is this one necessary? We have sent out nothing yet.
>>
>>Yes, currently nothing has been sent yet at this point.
>>
>>Is that better to always match the update of iteration_initial_bytes
>>and iteration_start_time in a explicit way to avoid some potential
missing?
>>
>
>You may get some point. Well after a close look, we may find other
potential
>problem.
>
>1. To be consistency, we need to update iteration_initial_pages too.
> So my opinion is to wrap the update of these three counters into a
helper
> function. So each time all of them.
>2. In function ram_get_total_transferred_pages, do we missed multifd_bytes?
In function ram_save_multifd_page, ram pages transferred by multifd threads
is
counted by ram_counters.normal.
You mean other multifd bytes like multifd packet or multifd sync info?
Thanks.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:49 AM Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 04:10:34PM +0800, Ivan Ren wrote:
> >>> s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
> >>>+ /*
> >>>+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to match
> >s->iteration_start_time.
> >>>+ */
> >>>+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
> >>
> >>Is this one necessary? We have sent out nothing yet.
> >
> >Yes, currently nothing has been sent yet at this point.
> >
> >Is that better to always match the update of iteration_initial_bytes
> >and iteration_start_time in a explicit way to avoid some potential
> missing?
> >
>
> You may get some point. Well after a close look, we may find other
> potential
> problem.
>
> 1. To be consistency, we need to update iteration_initial_pages too.
> So my opinion is to wrap the update of these three counters into a
> helper
> function. So each time all of them.
>
> 2. In function ram_get_total_transferred_pages, do we missed multifd_bytes?
>
> --
> Wei Yang
> Help you, Help me
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: always initial ram_counters for a new migration
2019-08-02 5:46 ` Ivan Ren
@ 2019-08-02 5:59 ` Wei Yang
2019-08-02 6:37 ` Ivan Ren
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Wei Yang @ 2019-08-02 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ivan Ren; +Cc: quintela, Wei Yang, dgilbert, qemu-devel
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 01:46:41PM +0800, Ivan Ren wrote:
>>>>> s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
>>>>>+ /*
>>>>>+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to match
>>>s->iteration_start_time.
>>>>>+ */
>>>>>+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
>>>>
>>>>Is this one necessary? We have sent out nothing yet.
>>>
>>>Yes, currently nothing has been sent yet at this point.
>>>
>>>Is that better to always match the update of iteration_initial_bytes
>>>and iteration_start_time in a explicit way to avoid some potential
>missing?
>>>
>>
>>You may get some point. Well after a close look, we may find other
>potential
>>problem.
>>
Well, I guess you need to use another tool to send mail. The format is
corrupted.
>>1. To be consistency, we need to update iteration_initial_pages too.
>> So my opinion is to wrap the update of these three counters into a
>helper
>> function. So each time all of them.
I don't see you reply this one or the mail is corrupted.
If we don't update iteration_initial_pages, the initial_pages will mismatch
the initial_bytes. Am I right?
>>2. In function ram_get_total_transferred_pages, do we missed multifd_bytes?
>
>In function ram_save_multifd_page, ram pages transferred by multifd threads
>is
>counted by ram_counters.normal.
>You mean other multifd bytes like multifd packet or multifd sync info?
>
Ok, it is counted in normal.
While if my understanding is correct, normal is used to count pages sent by
save_normal_page(). Sounds this is misused?
>Thanks.
>
>On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:49 AM Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
>wrote:
>
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: always initial ram_counters for a new migration
2019-08-02 5:59 ` Wei Yang
@ 2019-08-02 6:37 ` Ivan Ren
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ivan Ren @ 2019-08-02 6:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wei Yang; +Cc: quintela, qemu-devel, dgilbert
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:59 PM Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 01:46:41PM +0800, Ivan Ren wrote:
> >>>>> s->iteration_start_time = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME);
> >>>>>+ /*
> >>>>>+ * Update s->iteration_initial_bytes to match
> >>>s->iteration_start_time.
> >>>>>+ */
> >>>>>+ s->iteration_initial_bytes = migration_total_bytes(s);
> >>>>
> >>>>Is this one necessary? We have sent out nothing yet.
> >>>
> >>>Yes, currently nothing has been sent yet at this point.
> >>>
> >>>Is that better to always match the update of iteration_initial_bytes
> >>>and iteration_start_time in a explicit way to avoid some potential
> >missing?
> >>>
> >>
> >>You may get some point. Well after a close look, we may find other
> >potential
> >>problem.
> >>
>
> Well, I guess you need to use another tool to send mail. The format is
> corrupted.
>
OK
> >>1. To be consistency, we need to update iteration_initial_pages too.
> >> So my opinion is to wrap the update of these three counters into a
> >helper
> >> function. So each time all of them.
>
> I don't see you reply this one or the mail is corrupted.
>
> If we don't update iteration_initial_pages, the initial_pages will mismatch
> the initial_bytes. Am I right?
Yes, agree, I'll send a new version, thanks.
>
> >>2. In function ram_get_total_transferred_pages, do we missed multifd_bytes?
> >
> >In function ram_save_multifd_page, ram pages transferred by multifd threads
> >is
> >counted by ram_counters.normal.
> >You mean other multifd bytes like multifd packet or multifd sync info?
> >
>
> Ok, it is counted in normal.
>
> While if my understanding is correct, normal is used to count pages sent by
> save_normal_page(). Sounds this is misused?
>
Yes, current it is counted in normal, a specific counter is more accurate.
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-08-02 6:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-07-30 5:36 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: always initial ram_counters for a new migration Ivan Ren
2019-07-30 15:56 ` Juan Quintela
2019-08-01 2:21 ` Wei Yang
2019-08-01 8:10 ` Ivan Ren
2019-08-02 0:49 ` Wei Yang
2019-08-02 5:46 ` Ivan Ren
2019-08-02 5:59 ` Wei Yang
2019-08-02 6:37 ` Ivan Ren
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.