From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38567) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UQIhU-0005rR-UY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:42:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UQIhN-0002BU-V3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:42:08 -0400 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:38289) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UQIbQ-00005P-1F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:35:52 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e9.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:35:51 -0400 Received: from d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (d01relay06.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.116]) by d01dlp03.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E57AC90049 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:35:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av05.pok.ibm.com (d01av05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.195]) by d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r3BEZllS21364756 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:35:47 -0400 Received: from d01av05.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av05.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r3BEZk0c002104 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:35:47 -0400 Message-ID: <5166CA42.5050505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:35:46 -0400 From: "Michael R. Hines" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1365632901-15470-1-git-send-email-mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1365632901-15470-11-git-send-email-mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130411073843.GB19601@redhat.com> <51667FEE.903@redhat.com> <20130411111329.GA21714@redhat.com> <5166B86F.1050504@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130411135121.GB24942@redhat.com> <5166C381.4030405@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5166C5FA.1020009@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5166C5FA.1020009@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH RDMA support v1: 10/13] introduce new command migrate_check_for_zero List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, owasserm@redhat.com, abali@us.ibm.com, mrhines@us.ibm.com, gokul@us.ibm.com Can I at least get a firm yes or no whether the maintainer will accept this capability or not? What you ask would require defining what a "real world scenario" is, and I don't think that's a good discussion to have right now. Even if we did know the definition, I do not have the infrastructure in place to do an exhaustive search of such a workload. My personal view is: new software should define APIs, not hide APIs. The capability already has a default 'true' value, which is the same behavior that the value has always been and nobody's threatening to get rid of that. - Michael On 04/11/2013 10:17 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Ok, understood. > > I would be happy to add a check for the other migration URI > protocols (like 'unix', 'tcp', etc) which says rejects disabling > the zero page checking only if the URI is for rdma. > > Would that be OK? > I would like to see is_dup_page() on top of a "perf" profile for a > real-world scenario, and throughput numbers for the same real-world > scenario with/without is_dup_page(). Once you show that, yes. > > Paolo > If th - Michael