On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/26/2012 05:31 PM, Frank Swiderski wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rik van Riel<riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> The code looks good to me, my only worry is the >>> code duplication. We now have 5 balloon drivers, >>> for 4 hypervisors, all implementing everything >>> from scratch... >> >> >> Do you have any recommendations on this? I could (I think reasonably >> so) modify the existing virtio_balloon.c and have it change behavior >> based on a feature bit or other configuration. I'm not sure that >> really addresses the root of what you're pointing out--it's still >> adding a different implementation, but doing so as an extension of an >> existing one. > > > Ideally, I believe we would have two balloon > top parts in a guest (one classical balloon, > one on the LRU), and four bottom parts (kvm, > xen, vmware & s390). > > That way the virt specific bits of a balloon > driver would be essentially a ->balloon_page > and ->release_page callback for pages, as well > as methods to communicate with the host. > > All the management of pages, including stuff > like putting them on the LRU, or isolating > them for migration, would be done with the > same common code, regardless of what virt > software we are running on. > > Of course, that is a substantial amount of > work and I feel it would be unreasonable to > block anyone's code on that kind of thing > (especially considering that your code is good), > but I do believe the explosion of balloon > code is a little worrying. > Hm, that makes a lot of sense. That would be a few patches definitely worth doing, IMHO. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about inflating the balloon drivers in the meantime. Sigh, and I didn't even mean that as a pun. fes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
