On 21.10.21 10:00, Peter Xu wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 09:17:57AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> I know, whenever someone proposes a way to tackle part of a challenging >> problem, everybody discovers their hopes and dreams and suddenly you >> have to go all the way to solve the complete problem. The end result is >> that there is no improvement at all instead of incremental improvement. > > Yeah, there's the trade-off; we either not moving forward or otherwise we > could > potentially bring (more) chaos so the code is less maintainable. Before I'm > sure I won't do the latter and convince the others, I need to hold off a bit. > :-)
Sure :) >> I'm not planning on letting the user set the actual number of memslots >> to use, only an upper limit. But to me, it's fundamentally the same: the >> user has to enable this behavior explicitly. > > I'm not familiar enough on virtio-mem's side, it's just that it will stop > working when the ideal value (even in a very corner case) is less than the > maximum specified, then that trick stops people from specifying the ideal. > But > if it's bigger the better then indeed I don't see much to worry. Usually it's "the bigger the better", but there are a lot of exceptions, and error handling on weird user input is a little hairy ... but I'm playing with it right now, essentially having "memslots=0" -> auto detect as good as possible "memslots=1" -> default "memslits>1" -> use user input, bail out if some conditions aren't met. Especially, fail plugging if there are not sufficient free memslots around. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
