From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] RFC: userfault v2 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:38:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20141120173833.GG803@redhat.com> References: <1412356087-16115-1-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com> <544E1143.1080905@huawei.com> <20141029174607.GK19606@redhat.com> <545221A4.9030606@huawei.com> <20141030124950.GJ2376@work-vm> <5452E531.4070205@huawei.com> <20141119184938.GE803@redhat.com> <546D57E5.3080803@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Robert Love , Dave Hansen , Jan Kara , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Neil Brown , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, KOSAKI Motohiro , Michel Lespinasse , Taras Glek , Andrew Jones , Juan Quintela , Hugh Dickins , Isaku Yamahata , Mel Gorman , Sasha Levin , Android Kernel Team , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , "Huangpeng \(Peter\)" , Andres Lagar-Cavilla , Christopher Covington , Anthony Liguori , Paolo Bonzini , Keith Packard , Wenchao To: zhanghailiang Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <546D57E5.3080803@huawei.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:54:29AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote: > Yes, you are right. This is what i really want, bypass all non-present faults > and only track strict wrprotect faults. ;) > > So, do you plan to support that in the userfault API? Yes I think it's good idea to support wrprotect/COW faults too. I just wanted to understand if there was any other reason why you needed only wrprotect faults, because the non-present faults didn't look like a big performance concern if they triggered in addition to wrprotect faults, but it's certainly ok to optimize them away so it's fully optimal. All it takes to differentiate the behavior should be one more bit during registration so you can select non-present, wrprotect faults or both. postcopy live migration would select only non-present faults, postcopy live snapshot would select only wrprotect faults, anything like distributed shared memory supporting shared readonly access and exclusive write access, would select both flags. I just sent an (unfortunately) longish but way more detailed email about live snapshotting with userfaultfd but I just wanted to give a shorter answer here too :). Thanks, Andrea