Hi On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:25 PM Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:10:17PM +0000, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:39:17PM +0000, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > > Hi Rafael, Daniel, > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:22 PM Rafael David Tinoco < > > > > rafael.tin...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Let me work on it. I'll get back soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for working on it, before that I have a few questions: > > > > > > > > Tks Daniel. > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 04, 2016, at 05:36, Daniel P. Berrange < > berra...@redhat.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 04:15:55PM -0300, Rafael David Tinoco > wrote: > > > > > >> Yes, definitely. Check this: > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > So in that case, I think we must add ability to specify an > explicit > > > path > > > > > > that apps can use *regardles* of whether memfd support exists or > not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > How will this path be used? Is it going to be global to qemu for > various > > > > use (kinda like $TMP), or per-device, or for memfd fallback only? > Should > > > > the path pre-exist? (I suppose, if not, qemu should clean it up when > > > > leaving) > > > > > > I'd expect it to be an option set against the vhost user backend, since > > > that's the thing using this. > > > > > > If other things have similar usage needs wrt memfd in future, they > would > > > also need similar path config option. > > > > > > > The log may be shared if there are several vhost-user (stored in > > vhost_log_shm global), so I think it makes more sense to have a global > > config path for it, or you may end up duplicating that information per > > vhost backend and having files in either of the specified paths. > > Hmm, is there a reason why it is shared? That seems to make an assumption > that all vhost-user backends would be managed by the same external process. > While that may be the common case today, it doesn't feel like a reasonable > assumption to make long term. IOW it feels wiser to have it set per-NIC > unless I'm missing something important that means it must be shared ? > > It's a shared log, just like they share the same ram. Duplicating the log would mostly make migration more difficult to handle and increase a bit memory usage. > Regards, > Daniel > -- > |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ > :| > |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org > :| > |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ > :| > -- Marc-André Lureau
