On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 04:43:54PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 12/04/2013 13:25, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:53:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 12/04/2013 12:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
1. You have two protocols already and this does not make sense in
version 1 of the patch.
It makes sense if we consider it experimental (add x- in front of
transport and capability) and would like people to play with it.
Paolo
But it's not testable yet. I see problems just reading the
documentation. Author thinks "ulimit -l 10000000000" on both source and
destination is just fine. This can easily crash host or cause OOM
killer to kill QEMU. So why is there any need for extra testers? Fix
the major bugs first.
There's a similar issue with device assignment - we can't fix it there,
and despite being available for years, this was one of two reasons that
has kept this feature out of hands of lots of users (and assuming guest
has lots of zero pages won't work: balloon is not widely used either
since it depends on a well-behaved guest to work correctly).
I agree assuming guest has lots of zero pages won't work, but I think
you are overstating the importance of overcommit. Let's mark the damn
thing as experimental, and stop making perfect the enemy of good.
Paolo
It looks like we have to decide, before merging, whether migration with
rdma that breaks overcommit is worth it or not. Since the author made
it very clear he does not intend to make it work with overcommit, ever.