Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:51:06AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 01:41:01AM +0000, Liu, Yuan1 wrote: >> >> Because this change has an impact on the previous live migration >> >> With IAA Patch, does the submission of the next version needs >> >> to be submitted based on this change? >> > >> > I'd say hold off a little while until we're more certain on the planned >> > interface changes, to avoid you rebase your code back and forth; unless >> > you're pretty confident that this will be the right approach. >> > >> > I apologize on not having looked at any of the QAT/IAA compression / zero >> > detection series posted on the list; I do plan to read them very soon too >> > after Fabiano. So I may not have a complete full picture here yet, please >> > bare with me. >> > >> > If this series is trying to provide a base ground for all the efforts, >> > it'll be great if we can thoroughly discuss here and settle an approach >> > soon that will satisfy everyone. >> >> Just a summary if it helps: >> >> For compression work (IAA/QPL, QAT) the discussion is around having a >> new "compression acceleration" option that enables the accelerators and >> is complementary to the existing zlib compression method. We'd choose >> those automatically based on availability and we'd make HW accelerated >> compression produce a stream that is compatible with QEMU's zlib stream >> so we could migrate between solutions. >> >> For zero page work and zero page acceleration (DSA), the question is how >> to fit zero page detection into multifd and whether we need a new hook >> multifd_ops->zero_page_detect() (or similar) to allow client code to >> provide it's own zero page detection methods. My worry here is that >> teaching multifd to recognize zero pages is one more coupling to the >> "pages" data type. Ideallly we'd find a way to include that operation as >> a prepare() responsibility and the client code would deal with it. > > Thanks Fabiano. > > Since I'm preparing the old series to post for some fundamental cleanups > around multifd, and when I'm looking around the code, I noticed that > _maybe_ it'll also be eaiser to apply such a series if we can cleanup more > things then move towards a clean base to add more accelerators. > > I agree many ideas in your this series, but I may address it slightly > different (e.g., I want to avoid send(), but you can consider that in the > fixed-ram series instead), also it'll be after some other cleanup I plan to > give a stab at which is not yet covered in this series. I hope I can add > your "Co-developed-by" in some of the patches there. If you haven't spend > more time on new version of this series, please wait 1-2 days so I can post > my thoughts.
Sure, go ahead.
