Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755397AbcJYDwR (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:52:17 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35622 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750800AbcJYDwQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:52:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 06:52:13 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: "Li, Liang Z" Cc: "Hansen, Dave" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "quintela@redhat.com" , "dgilbert@redhat.com" , "pbonzini@redhat.com" , "cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com" , "amit.shah@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 kernel 0/7] Extend virtio-balloon for fast (de)inflating & fast live migration Message-ID: <20161025065143-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1477031080-12616-1-git-send-email-liang.z.li@intel.com> <580A4F81.60201@intel.com> <20161021224428-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 03:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1345 Lines: 29 On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:29:25AM +0000, Li, Liang Z wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:25:21AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > On 10/20/2016 11:24 PM, Liang Li wrote: > > > > Dave Hansen suggested a new scheme to encode the data structure, > > > > because of additional complexity, it's not implemented in v3. > > > > > > So, what do you want done with this patch set? Do you want it applied > > > as-is so that we can introduce a new host/guest ABI that we must > > > support until the end of time? Then, we go back in a year or two and > > > add the newer format that addresses the deficiencies that this ABI has > > > with a third version? > > > > > > > Exactly my questions. > > Hi Dave & Michael, > > In the V2, both of you thought that the memory I allocated for the bitmap is too large, and gave some > suggestions about the solution, so I changed the implementation and used scattered pages for the bitmap > instead of a large physical continued memory. I didn't get the comments about the changes, so I am not > sure whether that is OK or not, that's the why I resend the V3, I just want your opinions about that part. > > I will implement the new schema as Dave suggested in V4. Before that, could you take a look at this version and > give some comments? > > Thanks! > Liang Sure, I'll try to review just that part.