On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:29:22AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, Chao Peng wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 10:47:12AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > > > > > Filemap vs. xarray > > > ------------------ > > > This is the main item that needs attention. I don't want to merge guest_memfd() > > > without doing this comparison, as not using filemap means we don't need AS_UNMOVABLE. > > > Arguably we could merge a filemap implementation without AS_UNMOVABLE and just eat > > > the suboptimal behavior, but not waiting a little while longer to do everything we > > > can to get this right the first time seems ridiculous after we've been working on > > > this for literally years. > > > > > > Paolo was going to work on an axarray implementation, but AFAIK he hasn't done > > > anything yet. We (Google) don't have anyone available to work on an xarray > > > implementation for several weeks (at best), so if anyone has the bandwidth and > > > desire to take stab at an xarray implementation, please speak up. > > > > I can do some experiments in the following weeks on the xarray > > direction. I'm not quite confident I understood all what Paolo > > originally wanted to do, so questions may have. > > FYI, I jumped the gun, sounds like Paolo got far enough along to form a strong > opinion[*]. Yeah, I see that, that is a good news actually, then we can go ahead with the current filemap one. I personally think these mm touchpoints are not a big deal when compared to previous versions, most part we are just using the APIs. > > Thanks for volunteering though, much appreciated! NP, any collaboration is to make this lasting years series merge earlier. Chao > > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CABgObfay4FKV=foWLZzAWaC2kVHRnF1ib+6NC058QVZVFhGeyA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
