From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE10693892
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:16:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C9CAD2F82D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:15:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:15:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1A7BA47EA6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:15:36 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <eda3e336-98b3-1ba9-90b8-cbad73f830e4@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:15:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:110.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/110.0
Content-Language: en-GB, de-AT
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20230126134614.117709-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230126134614.117709-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.052 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied-series: [PATCH qemu 1/2] fix #4476:
 savevm-async: avoid looping without progress
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 08:16:07 -0000

Am 26/01/2023 um 14:46 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> when pend_postcopy is large. By definition, pend_postcopy won't
> decrease when iterating, so a value larger than the cutoff of 400000
> would lead to essentially empty iterations, filling up the state file
> until only 30 MiB + pending_size remain and the second half of the
> check would trigger.
> 
> Avoid this, by not considering pend_postcopy for the cutoff to enter
> the final phase.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> Many thanks to Fabian for discussing the issue with me!
> 
>  ...vevm-async-for-background-state-snapshots.patch | 14 ++++++++------
>  ...-PVE-add-optional-buffer-size-to-QEMUFile.patch |  6 +++---
>  ...async-register-yank-before-migration_inco.patch |  4 ++--
>  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied both patches, thanks!