On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 07:05:22PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2021, at 10:45 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I just don't like to slow down a feature required in the future for > > implementing postcopy live snapshotting or other snapshots to userland > > processes (for the non-KVM case, also unprivileged by default if using > > bounce buffers to feed the syscalls) that can be used by open source > > hypervisors to beat proprietary hypervisors like vmware. > > Ouch, that’s uncalled for. I am sure that you understand that I have no > hidden agenda and we all have the same goal. Ehm I never said you had an hidden agenda, so I'm not exactly why you're accusing me of something I never said. I merely pointed out one relevant justification for increasing kernel complexity here by not slowing down clear_refs longstanding O(N) clear_refs/softdirty feature and the recent uffd-wp O(1) feature, is to be more competitive with proprietary software solutions, since at least for uffd-wp, postcopy live snapshotting that the #1 use case. I never questioned your contribution or your preference, to be even more explicit, it never crossed my mind that you have an hidden agenda. However since everyone already acked your patches and I'm not ok with your patches because they will give a hit to KVM postcopy live snapshotting and other container clear_refs users, I have to justify why I NAK your patches and remaining competitive with proprietary hypervisors is one of them, so I don't see what is wrong to state a tangible end goal here. Thanks, Andrea
