On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:19 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 01:30:34PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 12:23:37PM CEST, m...@redhat.com wrote:
> > >On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 11:57:37AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > >> >True. Personally, I would like to just drop orphan mode. But I'm not
> > >> >sure others are happy with this.
> > >>
> > >> How about to do it other way around. I will take a stab at sending patch
> > >> removing it. If anyone is against and has solid data to prove orphan
> > >> mode is needed, let them provide those.
> > >
> > >Break it with no warning and see if anyone complains?
> >
> > This is now what I suggested at all.
> >
> > >No, this is not how we handle userspace compatibility, normally.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > Again:
> >
> > I would send orphan removal patch containing:
> > 1) no module options removal. Warn if someone sets it up
> > 2) module option to disable napi is ignored
> > 3) orphan mode is removed from code
> >
> > There is no breakage. Only, hypotetically performance downgrade in some
> > hypotetical usecase nobody knows of.
>
> Performance is why people use virtio. It's as much a breakage as any
> other bug. The main difference is, with other types of breakage, they
> are typically binary and we can not tolerate them at all.  A tiny,
> negligeable performance regression might be tolarable if it brings
> other benefits. I very much doubt avoiding interrupts is
> negligeable though. And making code simpler isn't a big benefit,
> users do not care.

It's not just making code simpler. As discussed in the past, it also
fixes real bugs.

>
> > My point was, if someone presents
> > solid data to prove orphan is needed during the patch review, let's toss
> > out the patch.
> >
> > Makes sense?
>
> It's not hypothetical - if anything, it's hypothetical that performance
> does not regress.  And we just got a report from users that see a
> regression without.  So, not really.

Probably, but do we need to define a bar here? Looking at git history,
we didn't ask a full benchmark for a lot of commits that may touch
performance.

Thanks

>
> >
> > >
> > >--
> > >MST
> > >
>


Reply via email to