On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 04:39:52PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> TODO >> ==== >> - benchmark/evaluation. Especially how async page fault affects the result. > > I'll review this series next week (Mike/Juan, please also review when you > can). > > But we really need to think hard about whether this is the right thing to > take into the tree. I worry a lot about the fact that we don't test > pre-copy migration nearly enough and adding a second form just introduces > more things to test. > > It's also not clear to me why post-copy is better. If you were going to > sit down and explain to someone building a management tool when they > should use pre-copy and when they should use post-copy, what would you > tell them?
The concrete patch and its benchmark/evaluation result will help much for making better discussion/decision (whatever decision we will make). My answer is, follow the same policy for block device case. It supports block migration/copy-on-read/image streaming/live block copy... (some of them are under development, though) Seriously, we'll learn the best practice through evaluation/making experiences. thanks, -- yamahata -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
