On 2024/08/09 0:25, Peter Xu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 10:47:28AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 10:15:36AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 07:12:14AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> This is too big of a hammer. People already use what you call "cross
>>> migrate" and have for years. We are not going to stop developing
>>> features just because someone suddenly became aware of some such bit.
>>> If you care, you will have to work to solve the problem properly -
>>> nacking half baked hacks is the only tool maintainers have to make
>>> people work on hard problems.
>>
>> IMHO this is totally different thing. It's not about proposing a new
>> feature yet so far, it's about how we should fix a breakage first.
>>
>> And that's why I think we should fix it even in the simple way first, then
>> we consider anything more benefitial from perf side without breaking
>> anything, which should be on top of that.
>>
>> Thanks,
>
> As I said, once the quick hack is merged people stop caring.
IMHO it's not a hack. It's a proper fix to me to disable it by default for
now.
OTOH, having it ON always even knowing it can break migration is a hack to
me, when we don't have anything else to guard the migration.
I think neither of them is a hack; they just deal with different
scenarios summarized in [1]. We need apply a solution appropriate for
each scenario, or we will end up with a broken system.
Regards,
Akihiko Odaki
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/r/770300ac-7ed3-4aba-addb-b3f987cc6376@daynix.com/