"Maciej S. Szmigiero" <m...@maciej.szmigiero.name> writes: > Hi Fabiano, > > On 20.06.2024 23:21, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> First of all, apologies for the roughness of the series. I'm off for >> the next couple of weeks and wanted to put something together early >> for your consideration. >> >> This series is a refactoring (based on an earlier, off-list >> attempt[0]), aimed to remove the usage of the MultiFDPages_t type in >> the multifd core. If we're going to add support for more data types to >> multifd, we first need to clean that up. >> >> This time around this work was prompted by Maciej's series[1]. I see >> you're having to add a bunch of is_device_state checks to work around >> the rigidity of the code. >> >> Aside from the VFIO work, there is also the intent (coming back from >> Juan's ideas) to make multifd the default code path for migration, >> which will have to include the vmstate migration and anything else we >> put on the stream via QEMUFile. >> >> I have long since been bothered by having 'pages' sprinkled all over >> the code, so I might be coming at this with a bit of a narrow focus, >> but I believe in order to support more types of payloads in multifd, >> we need to first allow the scheduling at multifd_send_pages() to be >> independent of MultiFDPages_t. So here it is. Let me know what you >> think. > > Thanks for the patch set, I quickly glanced at these patches and they > definitely make sense to me. > > I guess its latest version could be found in the repo at [2] since > that's where the CI run mentioned below took it from?
Yes > >> (as I said, I'll be off for a couple of weeks, so feel free to >> incorporate any of this code if it's useful. Or to ignore it >> completely). > > I guess you are targeting QEMU 9.2 rather than 9.1 since 9.1 has > feature freeze in about a month, correct? > For general code improvements like this I'm not thinking about QEMU releases at all. But this series is not super complex, so I could imagine we merging it in time for 9.1 if we reach an agreement. Are you thinking your series might miss the target? Or have concerns over the stability of the refactoring? We can within reason merge code based on the current framework and improve things on top, we already did something similar when merging zero-page support. I don't have an issue with that. >> CI run: https://gitlab.com/farosas/qemu/-/pipelines/1340992028 >> >> 0- https://github.com/farosas/qemu/commits/multifd-packet-cleanups/ >> 1- https://lore.kernel.org/r/cover.1718717584.git.maciej.szmigi...@oracle.com > > [2]: https://gitlab.com/farosas/qemu/-/commits/multifd-pages-decouple > > Thanks, > Maciej
