[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] multifd: Implement zerocopy write in multifd migratio
From: |
Leonardo Bras Soares Passos |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] multifd: Implement zerocopy write in multifd migration (multifd-zerocopy) |
Date: |
Wed, 27 Oct 2021 03:47:18 -0300 |
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 3:24 AM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 04:56:13AM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > diff --git a/qapi/migration.json b/qapi/migration.json
> > index 88f07baedd..c4890cbb54 100644
> > --- a/qapi/migration.json
> > +++ b/qapi/migration.json
> > @@ -724,6 +724,11 @@
> > # will consume more CPU.
> > # Defaults to 1. (Since 5.0)
> > #
> > +# @multifd-zerocopy: Controls behavior on sending memory pages on multifd
> > migration.
> > +# When true, enables a zerocopy mechanism for sending
> > memory
> > +# pages, if host does support it.
> > +# Defaults to false. (Since 6.2)
> > +#
>
> Shall we keep it named "@zerocopy"? Yes we have that dependency with multifd,
> but it's fine to just fail the configuration if multifd not set. The thing is
> we don't know whether that dependency will last forever, and we probably don't
> want to introduce yet another feature bit when we can remove the dependency..
> as we can't remove the old one to be compatible.
It makes sense not wanting to create a new future bit in the future,
but if we just add a
"@zerocopy' , wouldn't we need to fail every migration setup that
don't support zerocopy?
(Thinking back, to stay as it is, it would also be necessary that I
find a way to fail other multifd setups that don't support zerocopy,
for v5)
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>