On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 1:03 AM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:05:48AM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote: Let me add back what I said earlier: I'm not convinced, but it doesn't mean your point of view is invalid. If you fully understand the implications of your design choice and document them, I will not object. > > All optimizations in v2 were measured step by step. Even that bitmap, > > which might be considered overengineered, brought a readily > > measuarable 4% improvement in memcached throughput on Altra Max > > swapping to Optane: > > That's great, but taking an iterative approach to the problem allows > the reviewers and maintainers to come to their own conclusions about > each optimization independently. Squashing all of that together and > posting the result doesn't allow for this. That's your methodology, which I respect: as I said I won't stand in your way. But mine is backed by data, please do respect that as well, by doing what I asked: document your justifications. > Even if we were to take the series as-is, the door is wide open to > subsequent improvements. > > > What I don't think is acceptable is simplifying those optimizations > > out without documenting your justifications (I would even call it a > > design change, rather than simplification, from v3 to v4). > > No, sorry, there's nothing wrong with James' approach here. Sorry, are you saying "without documenting your justifications" is nothing wrong? If so, please elaborate. > The discussion that led to the design of v4 happened on list; you were > on CC. The general consensus on the KVM side was that the bitmap was > complicated and lacked independent justification. There was ample > opportunity to voice your concerns before he spent the time on v4. Please re-read my previous emails -- I never object to the removal of the bitmap or James' approach. And please stop making assumptions -- I did voice my concerns with James privately. > You seriously cannot fault a contributor for respinning their work based > on the provided feedback. Are you saying I faulted James for taking others' feedback? If so, where? And I'll make sure I don't give such an impression in the future. Also what do you think about the technical flaws and inaccurate understandings I pointed out? You seem to have a strong opinion on your iterate approach, but I hope you didn't choose to overlook the real meat of this discussion.
