[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120814213832.GA29180@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:38:32 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/4] virtio_balloon: introduce migration primitives to
balloon pages
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 04:56:59PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 04:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> >To clarify, the global state that this patch adds, is ugly
> >even if we didn't support multiple balloons yet.
> >So I don't think I can accept such a patch.
> >Rusty has a final word here, maybe he thinks differently.
>
> Before deciding that "does not support multiple balloon drivers
> at once" is an issue, is there any use case at all for having
> multiple balloon drivers active at a time?
>
> I do not see any.
For example, we had a proposal for a page-cache backed
device. So it could be useful to have two, a regular balloon
and a pagecache backed one.
There could be other uses - it certainly looks like it
works so how can you be sure it's useless?
And even ignoring that, global pointer to a device
is an ugly hack and ugly hacks tend to explode.
And even ignoring estetics, and if we decide we are fine
with a single balloon, it needs to fail gracefully not
crash like it does now.
> --
> All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists